5 comments about The Summer of 1787: The Men Who Invented the Constitution.

1. A quick pace read of the invention of our Constitution. Stewart's book teaches readers tons about the people who have pushed to the back of the American lexicon. We learn about all of players involved, not just Washington, Madison and Hamilton. The book spends a considerable amount of time discussing the impact of the Three-Fifths Compromise, an abomination on our history. Stewart is not afraid to shine a light on the dark parts of our history, and this is a well-written account of the Constitution that Americans should read to discover that others besides Madison worked on this document.



2. Recently I got interested in the Constitution and ended up on the internet reading Madison's extensive notes on the Convention. Interesting, but the relentlessly redundant speeches using language of 220 years ago were too much for me. Enter "The Summer of 1787."
   
   The Founders put the Constitution together under intense pressure working from May 25th through September 17th, 1787. They took off every Sunday and five other days (total 20 days off) in a span of 112 days. The result was a remarkable document that none of them admitted to being satisfied with. It was chock full of compromises but it was the best they thought they could do - given time constraints and the diverse needs of the states they represented.
   
   Since then it has been justly exalted and used as a benchmark for other nations' constitutions around the world, but compared to these other constitutions, it has undergone the least change. The founders themselves were quick to suggest that change be applied liberally and frequently to their document. This mentality was well represented by Washington's words, "We...do not contend that it is free from imperfections...there is a Constitutional door open for it [change]...I do not think we are more inspired, have more wisdom, or possess more virtue, than those who will come after us."
   
   With Stewart's pen (keyboard) the tedious arguing unfolds in dramatic fashion. Repeatedly, compromises the delegates spent weeks fighting over would be delegated to a polishing committee. Repeatedly, the committee or its single spokesman would create a product that exceeded their authority. With the stroke of a pen, they added things and altered details they didn't like. These changed concepts usually were approved by the whole assembly for various reasons - they didn't notice, a behind-the-scenes trade had been made, or they were just too tired to argue.
   
   As time wore on, more and more was delegated to committees. Temperament and personality kept long-winded or combative delegates off key committees. Intermittently, delegates would give up and go home, sometimes to return. A garbage basket committee for more difficult decisions was appropriately called "Committee of Postponed Parts." Finally, the "Style Committee" delegated to Gouverneur Morris the task of final wordage, giving him a final unique chance to re-edit meaning to his liking. With one exception, Morris held that temptation in check, condensed 23 articles down to seven and rewrote the famous and beautiful preamble.
   
   For any US citizen, especially any who would deify the Constitution, I can't recommend this book enough. It was a remarkable document but not without its problems. The compromises on slavery alone gave the South unrepresentative power and led to the Civil War. On the other hand the compromises seemed necessary if they were going to have any Constitution at all to show their nation - maybe slavery would die out on its own. A very powerful book and a definite 5-stars.



3. We are so fortunate to have had so many well written books about this time appear in the last few years.
   
   So few of us in America really understand what the Constitution says and what it means, and fewer of us know the story of the struggles to stitch together thirteen loosely confederated states into a country.
   
   Stewart has created a gripping narrative that paints the personal dramas these men had to navigate to establish the United States. There were many times I found myself anxious about whether the effort would succeed, even though we all know how it turned out. It is fascinating to learn the pressures and the priorities of the different people and groups that had to come together and reach some resolution in order for our contry to be born. And even more to learn of the amazing individuals who played pivotal roles in that miracle; both the ones who remain famous (I am more amazed each time I hear about how George Washington somehow managed to so delicately balanced his role to lead the country without permitting himself to accept the royal position so many wanted to give him - if only any of today's politicians could learn from his example), and the many whose accomplishments have been all but lost to today's students.
   
   I believe textbooks, especially history texts, are written with the express intention of pursuading kids to hate the topic. That they can pursuade curious young minds that events like the American Revolution are boring is a tragic but mighty feat. Stewart, who clearly has a deep interest in and love for the topic, is the perfect antithesis.



4. We revere our Constititution as a document of almost divine perfection, so it is enlightening to discover that it was marinated in the sweat of a hot Philadelphia summer. Some of its most important provisions were slapped together over weekends in back rooms by men with interests to protect and axes to grind. David Stewart tells the story of how the Constitution came to be, how the personalities of its authors influenced it, how their remarkable prescience created institutions which have lasted centuries, and how important slavery was to the final product. It is a wonderful story of some very human beings building the foundation of a great nation. The best way to understand our government is to learn how it was formed, and it is the responsibility of each citizen to know this.



5. Having no prior knowledge of the author, I didn't know what to expect. Since the subject matter was so appealing, I decided to give it a shot, and I'm glad I did. This book was very well done. It's a quick read of an unfolding drama that stars some of the biggest names in American history (Washington, Madison, Franklin). It also taught me a great deal about some of the supporting characters, including Sherman, the Pinckneys and the agitator Luther Martin. I think this is a book for anybody -- it's not too heavy and doesn't get bogged down in legal terminology, which was a concern of mine since the author is a lawyer. Nicely done.

5 comments about His Excellency: George Washington.

1. "His Excellency: George Washington" by Joseph Ellis is a brief but illuminating view of founding father and first president, George Washington. It briefly tells about what little is known of his boyhood, and then quickly moves on to his first public adventures in The French and Indian War. Mr. Ellis follows Washington from his first retirement after that war to Mount Vernon, Washington's pride and joy. From there his frustration with British authority (specifically in commerce) is followed to it's conclusion by his part in the American Revolution. Washington then tries to retire again, but is called back into service (very grudgingly) as the new republic's first president.
   
   If there was anyway to categorize this biography, it is as a myth buster. Many of the ideas we have about George Washington are, while not lies or wrong, are not exactly completely accurate. He is also presented as not so much forging the new nation as lending his credibility to the other men who's ideas were more sound (like Alexander Hamilton's bank and treasury policies or George Mason's protests against the English monarch). He is also shown as much less effective in dealing with pet projects like emancipation of slaves and a more respectful treatment of Native Americans. On a personal front Washington is miserly and land hungry, and benefited by very aggressive land schemes and ventures that may seem unscrupulous by today's standards.
   
   But he is also proud and unbending in what he thought was right. When he chose a course he stuck to it usually no matter what the outcome may be (though usually worked in favor of Mr. Washington. He was a devoted husband and father to Martha and her two children. And he treated his slaves better than most; he refused to split up families despite the economic problem this produced.
   
   I have seen many complaints of this book, saying that Ellis is trying to destroy the reputation of this great man. I do not think so. I have not done the research that Mr. Ellis has done, but I trust that the evidence bears him out. The book was entertaining and thought provoking, and I am glad I read it. Most recommended to anyone with an interest in the early American history and it's founding fathers.



2. First, I would recommend this book to anyone who just loves to consume books on the Revolutionary War and the Founding Fathers. This book was not as good as Mr. Ellis's venerable "Founding Brothers," and the "American Sphinx." Those books were a delight.
   1) It seemed in this book that Mr. Ellis did a "rush job" to meet a publisher deadline. The Brothers and Sphinx books, however, seemed like he really took his time and carefully chose the content.
   2) Admittedly it is not easy to cram George Washington into 300 pages. However, the hurried up history of the his war exploits left me wanting much more.
   3) I don't like the way modern authors bend over backwards to detail the foibles of the Founding Fathers or any great man of history. Tell us about their great achievements, brilliance, heroism, and providential placement in history. I don't want precious space taken up in a biography trying to appease the left-wing reviewers with 21th century values. Big deal, they weren't angels.
   
   All in all, the writing style was very good, and I didn't want the book to end. Cheers.



3. This is a relatively short -- 250 pages -- biography of George Washington. It is excellent. The problem with Washington, of course, is that he has been a remote, forbidding icon for so long that it is very hard for a modern reader to get any sense of who he was as a human being.
   
   Ellis starts out by acknowledging this problem, but he then cuts right through it. He gives us a very vivid view of who George Washington was, and how he became the monument. He presents Washington as a relatively uneducated man, of tremendous ambition, who grew up on what was then the wild frontier. His earliest experiences were as a colonial military leader in the French and Indian War of the 1750s. He simultaneously faced the disdain of the snobblish British troops toward him and his country, and the raw backwoods conditions of savage warfare with the Indians. He marched out with General Braddock, the uttlerly out of touch British military leader who refused to show any respect for colonials, and, after Braddock and his arrogant army was massacred, Washington -- who was then in his young 20s -- was the senior surviving officer who rallied what was left of the Anglo-American army and got it back to Virgiinia safely.
   
   Washington, in short, was someone who faced horrifying levels of violence and disorder, very young, along with the arrogance of imperial power. Ellis describes how he developed his own wisdom, not from reading, but from his very brutal experiences. The portrait he paints is just fascinating, and most of it was new to me. Washington became a large land-owner, and quickly figured out that the Virginia landowners, who produced cash crops for sale, and bought lavishly in England, were enmeshed in a system of dependence which left them forever in debt to the British merchants. Unlike most others, however, Washington acted on his understanding. He abandoned cash crops, and turned instead to diversifed wheat farming. He, in short, tried to convert Virginia into a northern-style farm economy. And he did this, out of his hatred of being controlled by others. Had other Virginians gone the same way, all of American history would be different.
   
   Ellis explains all of Washington's remarkable career in a simple and emotionally compelling manner. Washington, above all else, was ambitious and wanted not to be controlled by others. He also, however, had an incredibly strong sense of personal honor.
   
   Perhaps the most surprising aspect of Ellis' portrait of Washington is his assessment of Washington's thought. Ellis sees Washington as a basically uneducated person, lacking knowledge of any sophisticated intellectual systems, who saw further and more deeply than such brilliant men as Hamilton and Jefferson. Ellis sees him as a brutally realistic visionary. It is quite a compelling portrati.



4. This was a very good biography of Washington. It covered areas of his life that other biographies often don't, such as his early life and the period between the end of the wars and his election to the Presidency. What was especially interesting is that the author lets you see how Washington matured from an impulsive, hot-headed young office during the French and Indian Wars to the mature, innovative leader of the Continental Army. He also gives an honest review of Washington's views on slavery and the native population, which were not as callous as some but not as enlightened as others of the time. Some of the references are a bit academic: I had to look up what he meant by Washington taking the role of a `Fabian' during the Revolution and a "Cincinnatus' in the period after the war. I was also surprised that he did not go in depth on the main events of the Revolution, such as the Battle of Monmouth and the betrayal by Arnold, but he may have felt these areas are well covered elsewhere. In all this was a very informative and enjoyable book that will give a better understanding of the character of George Washington.



5. Too much of what is "known" about George Washington is based on myth rather than fact. This book strips away the glossy veneer and paints a portrait of a remarkable man who, despite his flaws, influenced the path that our early nation took more than any other person. Despite its relative brevity, this well written biography provides much insight into Washington. We learn how his business and personal dealings led to his disaffection with England and his support for the revolutionary cause. We see the evolution of his views on slavery. We understand how indispensable he was in establishing a strong and "energetic" (to borrow his words) federal government. I came way from this book with a much better appreciation for the "father of our country" and a clearer understanding of his contributions to the formation of our nation.

5 comments about 1776: The Illustrated Edition.

1. Excellent book looked at various places and amazon was found to be the cheapest and very fast shipping



2. Great book, gives you a different perspective into the individuals that are part of that time in history.



3. What an absolute delight to read, study, own, and display. The narrative is superb and the surprises hidden between the pages just waiting for you to open and explore, reminds me of Christmas morning.This is top shelf material. You will take pride in owning. Don't deny yourself this edition. It will yield a life time of pleasure.



4. I never did well in history classes. I wish this book had been around then, though! It's a gorgeous looking book and the writing is superb. Very gripping.



5. 1776 is the best book I have ever read, period. And it is non-fiction. I could not put it down.

5 comments about American Sphinx: The Character of Thomas Jefferson.

1. This book is a good entry point for a look into the man who was Thomas Jefferson. He is one of the most influential founding fathers of the USA and any serious historian cannot get through American history without studying Jefferson.
   
   Jefferson was a man who wanted to free slaves, but still owned slaves. He wanted personal freedom to trump government intervention, but used the government for the Louisiana purchase. He thought a revolution was good every once in a while but did not like the turns that the French revolution took. Contradictions, brilliance all were a part of this man.
   
   This book is well written. Ellis is a master-historian and I enjoy his books. I can't say I formed a stronger opinion of Jefferson after reading this book, but I can relate to him more after studying his life. We all have contradictions in what we believe, we all are not perfect, same as Jefferson.
   
   Good book - JVD



2. Rather than churning out a full-scale biography, Ellis explores several crucial periods of Jefferson's life in depth, showing how each of them enables us to understand the complexities of the man and what made him tick. This book is a slow read because there is so much to think about on every page. A man of ideas and vision, Jefferson was an incredibly complex and conflicted individual, capable of carrying out multiple levels of deception and subterfuge even from himself. I never realized what a radical libertarian Jefferson was before I read this book. It was a good thing he had the other Founding Fathers around to curb his revolutionary spirit! In spite of the reverence which most people feel for him today, he died feeling his life had been a tragedy. A great book for anyone who wants to come away feeling they now know Jefferson the man.



3. This book purports to address the character of Thomas Jefferson, but Ellis seems to season his work with a profusion of subjective negativity, perhaps to bolster his statement in the prologue that Jefferson "is not a statue".
   
   Just a few examples of Ellis's speculative negativity are underlined:
   
   p. 59 "During the debate (on the Declaration) Jefferson sat silently and sullenly..."
   p. 69 "...Jefferson's political vision was more radical than liberal, driven as it was by a youthful romanticism unwilling to negotiate..."
   p. 170 "...Jefferson's irrational decision to redesign and rebuild Monticello..."
   
   Ellis does not exemplify Jefferson's willful optimism, his basis for enlightenment thinking- unlimited freedom of thought, his cultivation of friends, music, food, and his spirit of hospitality. Ellis even describes Jefferson as distraught by many visitors to Monticello, rather than using this to show that Jefferson was most hospitable and engaging.
   
   Ellis's framework for describing Jefferson is alluded to on pg. 69: "[Jefferson's] mind instinctively created dichotomies and derived its moral energy from juxtaposing the privileged side of any case or cause with the contaminated side. While his language was often colorful, the underlying message was nearly always painted in black and white."
   
   Also, p. 151 "...a view of American politics that was also moralistic in tone and populated with clearly delineated villains and heroes."
   
   Yet this characterization of Jefferson is simplistic. Ellis seems to contradict himself when he states:
   
   p. 11 "The genius of his rhetoric is to articulate irreconcilable human urges at a sufficiently abstract level to mask their mutual exclusiveness." And "The Jeffersonian magic works because we permit it to function at a rarefied region where real-life choices do not have to be made."
   
   As President of the US, Jefferson could not have chosen a bolder, more public stage upon which to share his vision. This biography of Jefferson attempts to reduce his character to a framework of principles, but Ellis's framework is not consistent. Ellis describes Jefferson as `moral and binary' (pg. 323), with "primal categories of his political imagination."
   
   American Sphinx has a great analysis of the Adams - Jefferson correspondence, and Ellis's history of Jefferson's first Presidency from 1801-1804 is excellent. With respect to these phases, I gleaned more about Jefferson's character from Ellis than from Merrill Peterson's biography, Thomas Jefferson and the New Nation.
   
   The last sentence of the chapter on Jefferson's Presidency, 1801-1804, Ellis inexplicably dismisses Jefferson's second Presidency as a "...headlong fall from grace." Ellis's next chapter is "Monticello, 1816-1826". Though Ellis does later briefly address some aspects of Jefferson's 2nd term, he does not describe Jefferson's struggles, or the rationale of his goal of keeping the US neutral and out of the war between Britain and France. Ellis does not mention that though many urged Jefferson to run for a third term, he chose to follow George Washington's example and retire after two terms.
   
   Ellis omits examples of Jefferson's character: his "Decalogue -10 point coda of life", his spiritual side - his philosophy of deism. Jefferson's sense of harmony, his passion for gardening, his love of nature, his curiosity of about science, his intellectual side, his correspondence with Priestly, his heroes, Bacon, Locke, and Newton, are not addressed. Thus American Sphinx does not describe the complexity of the character his elusive subject. Ellis does have some fine examples of Jefferson's philosophy of leadership. On pg. 220, for example, Ellis writes "Jefferson's first instinct was to share with his fellow survivors and sharers of that experience - outsiders and the younger generation could not understand - that the true `spirit of `76' was back." But there are not enough of such descriptive insights. Ellis slams Jefferson for his relationship with Sally Hemings, and faults him for not manumitting his slaves upon his death.
   
   American Sphinx is a great but limited study, for it is biased and does not describe many dimensions of Jefferson's character. Ellis does not bolster his framework of Jefferson's nature as simplistic and dichotomous with examples. Ellis casts aspersions about Jefferson's character in a snide, derogatory and judgmental tone. Ellis concludes with the assertion that if Jefferson were alive today, "If we could ever persuade him to run, he would remain a formidable candidate for national office." This statement is not explained. Ellis might have speculated more about how Jefferson would view the US of the early 21st century, and in doing so, he might have illuminated more of Jefferson's character.



4. This book by Ellis is a good read on the elusive character of Thomas Jefferson. American Sphinx is not the standard biography, but delves deep into certain aspects of Jefferson.
   
   Ellis assumes that the reader has a good background in Jeffersonian history along with Revolutionary era history. These assumptions may get in the way of some, but did not affect me. The real point of this book was to look at the man Thomas Jefferson, and the way he thought. Joseph Ellis explores Thomas Jeffersons political ideas and his ideas on pressing issues of the time. Interestingly Ellis does not "pick a side" which is so often done in Jefferson books. It is a level headed view of a very complex man.
   
   This would be a good book to read, but should not be the first Jefferson biography you read. It is better suited for a second or possibly third biography of Jefferson. Jeffersonian ideas are clearly presented.
   
   Ellis is an outstanding historian and his other works are highly recommended, including Founding Brothers which takes an indepth look at 6 events that shaped America during the Revolutionary period.



5. I enjoyed this biography thoroughly. A lot of valuable insights into Jefferson's thought and personality were given, especially in the sections pertaining to his Philadelphia and Paris years.

5 comments about The Federalist Papers (Signet Classics).

1. 
   The Federalist papers were written as a part of the campaign to get the Constitution ratified in the American states. In New York, the final decision was in doubt, and Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay wrote a series of essays, published in the media of the time, to convince New York to ratify the Constitution. Jay became ill, and did not participate in this project as much as Hamilton (a New Yorker) or Madison (a Virginian). In the process, their propaganda also illuminated important themes emanating from the document being debated. As a result the Federalist papers are a rich source of understanding the logic and premises of the Constitution (but keep in mind the political purpose behind these documents).
   
   This is a fine version, with Rossiter being one of the deans of these documents. But it is the essays themselves that are most important. Let's take a look at a few issues emerging from these documents, to see what is at stake. . . .
   
   One juxtaposition is between Federalist # 9 and # 10. # 9 was written by Hamilton, and addresses how to deal with factions and discontent: He wanted a stronger central government that could suppress such threats to stability. # 10, on the other hand, is a much more subtle effort by Madison to address the same issue (no wonder the two of them became political enemies shortly thereafter). He felt that a republic over a large area would keep factions from becoming too dominant. He was more trusting of processes than was Hamilton. If you want to understand the brilliance of Madison, read Federalist # 10; it is a seminal document.
   
   # 47 and # 48 provide the rationale for two hallmarks of the American system: separation of powers (by which Congress, the courts, and the President have different sources of power) and checks and balances (the ability of each of the three branches to "check" the other, e.g., Presidential veto over Congressional laws or Congress being able to override said veto). #51 is even more explicit, with a near poetic turn by Madison. "Ambition must be made to counteract ambition. . . .If men were angels, no government would be necessary. . . ." In short, political figures may try to use the political system for their own advantage. By creating a government where such ambitions can be thwarted by others, you prevent evil effects of such ambition. Thus, checks and balances and separation of powers can deter misuse of power.
   
   And there is so much more in this volume. Hamilton, in #69 and # 70 indicates why a vigorous executive (President) is a plus for the proposed government. Just so, Hamilton in # 78 speaks of the role of the Supreme Court and the whole court system.
   
   The Federalist Papers are key documents regarding the Constitution. One must recognize their political purposes; one must understand that there are internal inconsistencies (compare, again, # 9 and # 10); one must take into account the extreme time pressures on the authors as New York's ratifying convention's meeting loomed. Nonetheless, this is an important document and provides genuine insights into the minds of the Founders.



2. "The Federalist Papers" is a good preamble to how our Constitution came to be written by giving us the thought processes Madison, Hamilton, and Jay expressed while they were defending reasons for replacing the Articles of Confederation. Although I haven't finished reading all the papers, I've already learned many things and dispelled several preconceptions about our Constitution that I had previously thought was fact. For instance, our Constitution has intentionally created in it a 'factional' system (first defended by Madison in Paper No. 9) that promotes discord and disharmony. The factions are designed to prevent the majority from totally controlling the federal government so that minorities can have an almost equal sway over all governing facets. The thought process here has to do with experiences of Athens and other pure democracies that ultimately turned into a rule by mob mentality. Another interesting point is Publius's accounts of social norms of the day, and his assumption that these norms would continue on and on which is a fallacy in today's Union with it's limitless special interests, both monied and pauperism, and the politically correct idea of diversity being a good thing for our society. Publius had no idea of Communism or Socialism and what that type of faction could cause in creating havoc in this country and our government.
   
   If my opinion is worth anything to anyone, reading these papers along with the Antifederalist papers is well worth one's time for the reasons I've stated above plus many more.



3. The essays themselves are repetitive but the 72 page long Editor's Introduction is a well summarized explanation of the essence of those essays.



4. The Federalist Papers were incredibly important in the ratification of the Constitution. Published in New York, and in installments the papers are very influential in American Politics.
   
   The Authors of the Federalist Papers are an interesting group. Madison and Hamilton did not have the same political views, but it is very difficult to tell the difference between their writings. The reason for this is the persona of Publius (An ancient Roman) that was taken on by both Hamilton and Madison.
   
   The Federalist Papers outlined the ideas and the powers of the new government. This book is outstanding because it has a guide to the papers. Some of the historical references and language which was used at the time of the publication are not understood by most readers of the 21st century and the guide and explanation of these ideas makes this book a gem. The introduction and editing are highly readable and emphasize the great importance the Federalist Papers had on the forming of the United States.
   
   This is a must read for students of American History (and look at all the papers not just the infamous number 10, many others are worth reading).



5. Great historical document by founders Hamilton,Madison, & Jay. Should be requited reading in every Classroom.

5 comments about American Creation: Triumphs and Tragedies at the Founding of the Republic.

1. On the heals of Founding Brothers by Mr. Ellis I was very much interested in American Creation. An excellent book with an admirable balance of historical fact, interpertation where appropriate and "I can't say" again, where appropriate.
   
   Significant part of the book read like a novel. Beautifully written and admirably researched.
   
   Dennis Landry
   Fairfax Va.



2. But, the guys were bright enough to make the Constitution ambiguous enough to allow for future modification and interpretation on the issues they could not resolve. Two of the big ones were slavery and what to do about the Native Americans. Neither of those issues are yet resolved to full satisfaction, but maybe some day. After all, the women of the USA did eventually get the right to vote which was not available to women when the good old boys of the Founders did their thing at the onset of the American Creation...



3. No matter what your opinion of Ellis may be, he is one of the best popular history writers out there. His contribution within his introduction to the discussion of how the Founding Fathers should be seen in American history is a must read for not only teachers/students of history, but most importantly the media talking heads. He pin points the faults and greatness of these men with an even hand, and futhermore, explores issues that are rarely if ever discussed when the question of Native-American and African-American treatment is discussed in terms of these men. His chapter dedicated to Washington at Valley Forge gives more insight not only to the Revolutionary War, but most importantly to the insights of Washington himself. The chapter devoted to Native-Americans and the Treaty of New York was enlightening to say the least. One can not help but read it and ask themselves "What If?" Many of the stories within the book have been told many times, but it is the context in which Ellis places them that makes this book a very useful tool especially for teachers who have struggled (like I have myself) with trying to find the middle ground between the greatness and the failures of these men.



4. Writing: The subtitle of the book is "Triumphs and Tragedies at the Founding of the Republic," and Ellis sticks with that theme as he reviews various episodes in the early US -- from the Revolutionary War to Louisiana Purchase -- to recount unexpected triumphs that made the US an unexpectedly viable republic, and the unquestionable tragedies (dealing with Indians east of the Mississippi and the issue of slavery) where the Founders were unable (or unwilling) to do what we feel is right.
   
   The text is folksy and episodic, easy to listen to (even if sometimes Ellis overdoes his introductory and wrap-up sections in each chapter). His theme stands up without too much propping, and he manages to treat the Founders in a way neither "idolatrous nor iconoclastic."
   
   Info: Nothing stood out as a glaring inaccuracy or distortion of history from my listening. Though each chapter is relatively short, Ellis manages to include a lot of information.
   
   The seven "episodes" he details are: 1775, which marked a critical mass in the impulse toward independence; Washington at Valley Forge, shifting the war from a traditional European fight to a broadly dispersed insurgency that the British could not afford to fight; the Constitutional Convention, which set up a dynamic between state and federal sovereignties that still has an impact on modern US politics; the Treaty of New York with the Creek Indians, an attempt to establish a "just peace" with a large set of tribes that was doomed from the outset by American demography; the establishment of the (two) party system, which nobody claimed to want, but which quasi-conspiracies against demonized opponents made necessary; the Louisiana Purchase, which established American primacy on the continent, doomed the Indians, made inevitable the Civil War, and, ironically pushed through by Jefferson, spelled the beginning of the end for Jeffersonian states rights.
   
   Of all of these, the Indian chapter is the most fascinating, and probably the least well-known to me, as Washington and Knox -- and the other Founders on the stage -- get to express their repeated desire to make something positive about relations with the Indians, and even go so far as to try to make treaties with them work, but fail due to political clashes and the rapid population growth of the American states.
   
   Re-Listenability: The "small tales" nature of the book makes listening to it in chunks quite doable, and will make it more likely I'll come back to it again.
   
   Audio: John H. Meyer provides a voice both folksily conversation and erudite. Pleasant to listen to, he works with Ellis to be telling a story to the reader, rather than the reader eking a story out of the page. Judging from some of the comments, he does a good job of turning some of Ellis' prose into a more enjoyable "listen."
   
   Technically, okay, though some of the sound levels between recording breaks are off a bit.
   
   Overall: A solid historical survey by Ellis. There are no tremendously new insights here, but it's a refreshingly entertaining review of the Founding period, and of the Founders itself. If there's anything to critiquie, it's that it is just a survey, sprinkled with tidbits of facts, whereas any of the individual chapters -- or people -- here could warrent (and have) full books of their own. But in touching on so many aspects of the Founding, Ellis does a good job in creating a bigger picture in which to examine the period and its players as a whole.



5. Ellis set out to explain a handful of critical issues in the early development of the US -- events he thought critical, and some of those not obvious choices (perhaps the most contentious aspect of the work, given that the rest is largely factual recount with well-trod interpretation).
   
   If you're interested in this topic and actively debate politics, the book relays quite a few conversational gems. Also, you can be assured the author's accreditation, a veritable brand in American history scholarship. If you value these things but also consider yourself tired of the rhetoric concerning the evils of slavery (if you're an 'enough already; tell me something else' history buff), this book will (nothing new) seem to dwell a tad much on that formative topic.
   
   Ellis contributes nothing Earth-shattering. He has described, with astute, contextual awareness and a professor's selectiveness relative to the entire body of knowledge available, a small number of key historical events. What Mr Ellis considers most critical might bewilder some, but the choices are clearly considered decisions by a well-qualified historian writing for a mass market audience. Also, his choices respond to the concerns of present day Americans, which I find a bit dithering but (while reading) was willing to endure. Ellis's choices are perfectly square with many current day Americans' outrage over the perpetuation of slavery despite seemingly counter-intuitive language in the DofI and the Constitution as well as anguish over the treatment of Native Americans. As such, I worry there were likely other issues more important to the formative years that didn't make the cut because of their lacking vogue value today. So, I want to know WHAT happened, not WHY present-day Americans should forgive through understanding what happened. Make no mistake, however; Ellis does not fall prey to a leftist pandering mentality. He offers illustrious explanation and context for decisions made, with the air that you'd be as hard pressed to make them if then and there.
   
   Also a little bothersome to me (and something Ellis cannot help) is that Ellis is becoming another Consumer's Digest of American history publishing, helping readers interpret a mess of facts through a very well-developed, well-honed lens; as if saying pay this $xx and avoid the stuff that doesn't matter. Ellis helps readers with a basic knowledge of American history who are thinking 'well, how does all THAT fit together' forge a meaningful interpretation of formative events, even if it's not their own interpretation. My concern is for those whose knowledge of the facts is limited to this text. That said, I still think the pop-history genre a good thing for readers.
   
   So. Nothing controversial. Nothing really new. Just a thought-provoking selection of events and associated facts yielding a more nuanced understanding of a few select moments in US history -- the nuances comprising the earlier-mentioned conversational gems and the fundamental understanding a possible misgiving given the pre-filtered nature of the work and one's willingness to believe in its absolute importance given the growing Ellis brand.

5 comments about 1776.

1. I was moved by the John Adams miniseries, and by my lack of knowledge about exactly what happened in the Revolutionary War after Concord and Lexington, to give this book a try. I found it to be an excellent book of its type. In particular, I admired what seemed to me a balanced presentation of the people and events. The author plainly holds George Washington in the highest esteem, but he shows his flaws and misjudgments as well as his triumphs with equal equanimity. One never feels that facts are being squeezed, highlighted or cajoled to fit a preconceived theme.
   
   In addition, I found the depth of coverage just right for me. Not superficial, but not mindnumbing superflous detail either. The year 1776 is delivered as promised, and I learned a lot---relatively painlessly---by reading this book.
   
   Ultimately, though, it is a straightforward history and, as such, was somewhat dry for my tastes, which run more towards historical fiction. I have no criticism of the author's presentation---to the contrary, it was impressive and reasonably engaging. While I was never at risk of not finishing, I would never describe the book as "hard to put down," and had no regrets when the year came to an end.



2. I loved this book! I was so caught up in every element of the story. If I hadn't known that we had won our independence from Great Britain, I would never have imagined as I read this book that we could and did. It looked very bad for us until the last part of this book. A sheer delight! I didn't really care for American history growing up, although I was fascinated with European history. This book by David McCullough has changed my mind completely. Extremely well-written. The characters just come alive. I will be purchasing "John Adams" by McCullough next.



3. Being a student of medicine and not American history, 1776 reawakened the collegiate interest that I had in American Revolutionary History in years past. While I am not knowledgable enough to be critical of previously reviewed shortcomings in detail and anacronism, I did develop a richness of appreciation for the story told, and further, developed a distinct understanding of the reasons why our current Administration decided to redeploy the First Union Jack, a standard from this period, on all of its Navy vessels since September 11, 2001. The probability of our fledgling Nation's rag-tag militias' ability to overcome a professional British Army is analogous to our current day probability of overcoming the barbarity and threat of Islamo-fascism and its global extent...a very tough uphill battle indeed, and in some minds, undo-able without divine providential assistance. 1776 should be read with the risk to our current-day liberties in mind. Few tell the story as well as McCullough, both in text and in the audiobook. I consider myself privileged, as a doctor of medicine, to have been a student of Dr. Benjamin Rush Jr., the great great great grandson of Dr. Rush, the Declaration signer. As if that were not enough, I recently discovered, while reading 1776, that my closest college friend, a Richard Henry Lee of NJ, just happens to be the great great great grand nephew of Richard Henry Lee of Virginia, another Declaration signer. I find the level of detail utilized by McCullough to be more than adequate for the purposes of alerting 21st century Americans to the fierce fight had in 1776, and how similar will be that fight to the fight we have before us to save our great Nation from Islamic barbarism.



4. As an undergraduate History student you would not think I would want to read historical books in my free time. I had a professor suggest this book to me and it took two years after for me to finally pick it up but I am so glad I did. It has instantly become one of my favorite books and I have already bought more of David McCullough books and look forward to reading all of them.



5. There is little I can add that other reviewers haven't already said, so I'll keep my comments brief. "1776" is a focused history, primarily of the events of that year, but more specifically of George Washington's leadership of the ragtag Continental Army through the most critical phase of the battle for independence. Other personages like Nathanael Greene and Henry Knox figure very prominently, as do British commanders like the brothers Howe (general William and admiral Richard).
   
   The narrative picks up in the summer of 1775, just after Bunker Hill, with the appointment of Washington to lead the American army, such as it was in those days. It then traces through the siege of Boston and the capture of Dorchester Heights, through the catastrophic New York campaign and retreat through New Jersey, and culminates with the American victories at Trenton and Princeton. The story ends there rather abruptly. From beginning to end the tale is told from both the American and British perspective, from the highest commanders to the lowest foot soldiers.
   
   Through it all, Washington is without a doubt the central personality on display. The strength of his character and resolve shine through in the face of myriad adversities, the failures of his ragamuffin troops, and his own occasional military ineptitude. McCullough strikes a trustworthy historical balance between the adulation afforded Washington in his times of success, to the doubts of those same admirers in his times of failure. Drawing heavily on primary sources in the form of preserved letters and diaries, both from Washington and those who surrounded him, McCullough paints an accurate and realistic portrait of the one man who, more than any other, can rightly be credited with saving the cause of American independence, by the grace of God.
   
   My only criticism, and it is a minor one, is that I would have preferred that McCullough expand the end of the narrative to provide a synopsis of the remaining war years. Of course, this was evidently beyond the scope of what the author intended, so I'll have to look elsewhere for that portion of the history. What McCullough gave us, however, was brilliantly done, and I would highly recommend it to anyone who wants to know what REALLY happened during that crucial year.

5 comments about The Adams-Jefferson Letters: The Complete Correspondence Between Thomas Jefferson and Abigail and John Adams.

1. This collection of historic dialogue is just what I was looking for. The simply and powerfully reprints the letters between Adams, the older more conservative thought leader for a nation, and Jefferson, the quiet country Gentleman who gave voice to that nation. This chronilogical collection of letters bring to life the common bond that brought together and then sustained these two giants; the love of well formed thoughts and learning. The addition of the Abigal to Jefferson letters adds a deeply spiritual and personal tough. A great tool for understanding the thoughts and arguments behind the norming and forming of the United States.



2. Throw Away the texbooks. As others have said this is our Real History and Heritage. There is more to be found here on Ethics and Intergrity than in any of the pogressively vaporous decriptions of these men and their times. Imagine the chief architects of the Great Experiment in Representstve Democracy. Adversaries at the Constitutional Congress; ememies over the the transition from Adam's Presidency to Jefferson's. And then THESE! Conciliation and repect and eventually true affection - The founding fathers in thier own words - asessing what they had wrought - the good, the bad, the ugly - all passsed through that wondeful 18-19th Century Prose. Throw away the text books. Integrity was the founding principle of Taoism; Ethics the founding princple of Socratic/Platonic discouse. Adams and Jefferson knew this. Many Americans are waking up astounded by the lack of these two foundational elements in our modern system of governance. There is more to be learn of governance,literature and critical thinking on any page than there is in an entire high-school(and most college) curricula. Jefferson and Adams are stirring, stirring - and this can only be a Good Thing.



3. Out second and third presidents began their political career as friends, fell out, and then fortunately became friends again. In this wonderful collection of personal letters we see not only the men but the times until their deaths July 4, 1826. One of our most beloved presidents and most mis-understood are brought into reality by this collection. They were after all both remarkable men and human beings.



4. Have you ever wanted to be a fly on the wall and to be able to share in the thoughts and happenings of important places and people? Well, if your desires in that regard include the office of the Presidency of the United States and the early days following the American Revolution, that is exactly what this book provides.
   
   As was typical of statesmen of that day, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams maintained a lengthy personal and professional correspondance the subjects of which were both mundane and highly intellectual. This book takes that correspondance, chronologically arranges it and then groups it according the characteristics of the time and the themes of their correspondance. As an additional bonus, John's wife Abigail Adams is included as well.
   
   My attraction to this volume was to seek clarity and focus on several questions that are quite relevant to today. What was meant and intended by the concept of Separation of Church and State and what was the philisophic and religious thinking of there two important figures? There's no shortage of resources out there to tell you what these men thought, the context of their society and usually as an added bonus how these matters in one way or another support the agenda or perspective of the one putting the source together.
   
   At some point however, if you really want to grapple with these issues or just understand the times and importance of these two men, there is no substitute for simply reading and allowing them to speak for themselves.
   
   The added benefit of reading it through in its entirity is that you are not subjected to the judgement of another as to what is significant, what isn't and you aren't relying upon snippets and quotes that may or may not be in context and may or may not be representative of all that either man had to say upon a certain matter.
   
   Certainly, this is just a small cross-section of all that these two men wrote and by itself there is much more that should be added. However, more than any other correspondance preserved from that day that these men engaged in, this was an exchange between men who considered the other his equal and for whom, with exceptions in time periods that are noted, mutual respect and a desire to explain themselves to one another motivated a candor and depth of intimacy that is difficult to find in other sectors.
   
   Certainly, any student of American History needs this resource as a reference and as such it affords a ready means to add information and topically flip through the pages to see what each man had to say on a particular subject.
   
   Every such student though, in my opinion, owes it to themselves, at least once, to just sit down and read the entire volume. Do this, and you'll have a handle upon the style of communication of the day, a feeling for many of the issues of the day and how they were viewed by the participants who did not have the advantage of knowing at the time how something would resolve. Idiosyncrasies in language and social custom will become more self-evident and the chances of being mislead by a quote isolated from its context will diminish considerably.
   
   In short, for anyone who loves History, this is an experience not to be missed.
   
   The footnotes and introductory passages to the different sections in my opinion do a remarkably good job of providing the reader with just enough context and outside information so that the letters themselves make sense and are not misunderstood. The reader is not told what to think about the letters per se, but rather equipped to make a better informed evaluation and come to their own conclusions. Those elements make the book valuable as well.
   
   5 stars if ever there was a book worthy of 5 stars; again, this IS history.
   
   Bart Breen



5. What an incredible feeling reading the words of two of our country's founding fathers. To feel the respect and affection , as well as irritation, of these men is astounding. I am grateful that they have been made available to us to have and hold in our own hands and libraries and to pass on to our children.

5 comments about Founding Brothers: The Revolutionary Generation.

1. This book contains chapters that describe slices of early American history, and the men involved, beginning with the Burr/Hamilton duel, and ending with the reconciliation of John Adams and Thomas Jefferson at the end of their lives.
   It's an excellent book and I was sorry when I finished it. The only flaw is that in some cases, particularly the duel, the author seems to beat the subject to death. Despite this, I'd recommend it to anyone with an interest in the establishment of our nation.



2. Ellis presents this as if it were a light little book: a collection of vignettes about the Founders that will give us some random insights into the Revolution and the early Republic. It certainly reads like a light, little book. The pages turn easily, and it is a very entertaining read.
   
   But, beneath the very decorative surface, this is a very serious book. It is nothing less than a prolonged series of explorations into the contradictions at the heart of the Revolution and of America. The fundamental contradiction which Ellis sees is between the spirit of the Revolution -- which opposed all authority of any kind -- and the needs of the new Republic to have effective leadership. This is why the unity of the Washington period gave way to the extraordinary bitterness of the partisan warfare during the Adams Administration. Washington, Hamilton and Adams focused on the need to build a nation with effective institutions of leadership. Jefferson and Madison saw any strong leadership -- until THEY won the White House -- as a betrayal of the Revolution.
   
   It would be easy for Ellis to see Jefferson as essentially a hypocrite. The great exponent of freedom who kept slaves. The merciless attacker of the shoemaker's son (John Adams) as an aristocrat when he inherited his wealth. The leader of the slander and defamation against both Washington and Adams, who served as a high official in both of their Adminstrations.
   
   All of this is true, and Ellis examines it, but there is more to Jefferson than just hypocrisy, and Ellis sees that as well. As he explains, Jefferson had a great talent for creating stories, which fit grand narrative lines. Unlike Adams, who insisted on seeing reality as a mass of messy contradictions, Jefferson also saw the world as playing out the simple and inspiring lines of the great Englishtenment melodrama in which reason and freedom marched to their inevitable victory over superstitution and feudalism.
   
   This, of course, speaks to Jefferson's ability at self-delusion -- of which he was a master -- but there is more. The new Republic needed a founding story. People need a simple narration, to use to make sense of their world. Adams was quite unable to giving one to America; he insisted there there was no simple story line. Jefferson was so incredibly effective as a leader, precisely because he could create these story lines and make people believe them. More than all of the other Founders, Jefferson was able to create a new iconography for the new Republic. Ellis sees, and lucidly explains, all of these levels of Jefferson, the self-deluding hypocrite who flattened out the messy parts of reality to fit the story line in his head, but then made that story line THE story line which inspired the new nation. Very complex stuff, and Ellis does full credit to it.
   
   The insights into the individual leaders are just extraordinary. Ellis simultaneously is deeply sympathetic to, yet harshly critical of, nearly all of the Founders. He understands them, and he sees into their souls. He loves and admires them, yet no one is more aware of their failings. This is not a book with easy answers. Instead, it is a book



3. Others have commented upon Ellis' problems with the truth in his personal life, and I will not revisit those issues here. However, while this book is a good read and tells interesting stories, there are factual problems here when you get down to the details. First, the book is poorly documented. Only direct quotes seem to be cited with footnotes. Thus, when the author makes questionable assertions, his sources are unidentified. For example, he claims that the idea of political parities was new in the 1790s. Anyone with a fundamental knowledge of colonial or British politics knows this claim to be false. Second, Ellis claims that Jefferson's affair with Sally Hemmings has been proven by DNA evidence beyond all reasonable doubt. Again, this claim is false. The DNA testing has only proved that a member of the Jefferson family fathered Hemmings' children. Personally, I believe it was Thomas Jefferson, but the DNA evidence has proven nothing beyond a reasonable doubt. Third, Ellis claims that Hamilton's pamphlet against John Adams had no major impact on the election of 1800, which is a fact others would certainly dispute. These are some examples of Ellis' weakness with details and facts. His interpretations are often made, it seems to me anyway, to fit his preconceived agenda. George Washington, for example, is portrayed as the father of big-government liberalism.
   
   This book is very readable, but the stories seem disconnected to me and some statements of fact and assertions are highly questionable. I cannot even see very clearly what the overall argument is in the book. I almost wonder if these stories were bits and pieces left over from other works that Ellis threw into a book he thought would easily sell to the general public. If you read this book, read it critically and do not take it at face value. I'm really not sure why this book won a Pulitzer. It must have been for the writing itself. This book is a good read, but it is often very bad history.



4. If I had to recommend one book to read in a year, I would recommend The Founding Brothers.
   
   Joseph Ellis recounts the early stages of American history with six historically-based tales about the Founding Fathers or, as he thinks of them, the Founding Brothers. The stories of Jefferson, John Adams, Madison, Washington, Hamilton, and Franklin (more of a Founding Grandfather, Ellis asserts) highlight how the period after the Revolutionary War was the most politically treacherous in our nation's history. It was the Founding Brother's talents and foresight that allowed them build a country out of a revolution which, in most cases, falls short of ideals because of personal ambitions.
   
   The stories of the Founding Brothers is completely factual, however, the stories are written so that the reader can see the emotional and personal character aspects that the Brothers experienced during the early years of our nation. The stories are interconnected and woven so that even though each of the stories highlight different facets of the nation's early history (the ratification of the Constitution, the question of slavery, the infamous duel at Weehawken, the location of the new republic's capitol), the major players remain the same. Their personalities are built together to create interesting and insightful history.
   
   This book won the Pulitzer Prize. After reading, I found that to be no surprise at all. It's an excellent read with a blend of wit, conviviality, learnedness, and intelligence.



5. In the afterglow of the HBO series on John Adams, I grew interested in some of the founding fathers, many of whom had seemed boring to me ever since I read their bios in grade school. Ellis does a highly intelligent and readable job of laying out the personalities, conflicts and battles of the whole group during the first years of the nation. I particularly like the chapter on the duel between Aaron Burr and Alexander Hamilton. Also great is the chapter about George Washington, who had seemed a cardboard character to me until my interest was piqued by the TV series. Ellis is more than a little inclined to repeat himself in that particular way academics have, although his ruminations are likely to advance the story, although a bit wordily. That aside, this book is worth digging into by anyone who wants to know what those guys were really all about and who doesn't want to be told by some ideologue what to think about them.

5 comments about John Adams.

1. This is an excellent book about a man that I previously knew very little about. Very interesting and flows well. It gave me a new perspective on some other historical figures as well, including Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin. I highly recommend this book.



2. I can't put the book down. It's a well written story, very entertaining and educational. I'm learning so much about our founding fathers and the birth of this nation that I didn't learn in school.



3. Of course it is only a metaphorical question, but if there were more politicians around who adored their wife and their country, America would be a pretty different place. He said what he thought and he thought deeply. He had a strict moral obligation to his God, country and his family and would never consider going against any of these things. This book reveals all these things about a complicated man. It is not a dry academic novel but a fascinating story. You cannot find too many of these out there and I have had to read many of those to get through bachelors degree and halfway through my masters. One of the things that impressed me the most was the level with which he treated his wife. In the time that he lived this was phenomenal.



4. There are many more erudite descriptions of John Adams. I decided to write a review because it is my favorite non-fiction book and I felt that the HBO series took the wind out of Adams' sails in so many ways. The HBO miniseries, which I long awaited, bored me to tears. There was none of the excitement in the series that I read in the book. Paul Giamatti's Adams could not speak above a whisper and did not convey, at least to me, the spirit of John Adams, which I read in 2001 and still remember vividly. John Adams had such an interesting and varied life, that to distill it as it was done in the HBO series leaves the viewer questioning how this complex man was anything more than a bombastic autocrat.
   
   David McCullough's use of primary sites and his use of the many letters written to his wife Abigail makes this book one of the most memorable and romantic of all the founding fathers. He clearly writes about his personal life - his treatment of his children, the favoritism of John Quincy, his life-long love affair with his wife and their juxtaposition with his duty to his fledgling country as well as his interest in his own epitaph. He brings to life a human who was so multi-faceted and brings most of those facets to life.
   
   I am not an historian, so I realize there are many things missing knowledge of John Adams. However, that which was included was readable, interesting and kept me turning those many pages with ease.



5. David McCullough is to history was John Grisham is to literature: he's lite fare, easily digestable but not particulary nourishing. To me, the book seemed like a watered-down and streamlined portrayal of an important historical figure. It's reasonable well-written and moves along at a good clip; it just seems superficial. I guess that's o.k. if your target audience is people who don't normally read history. If you fall into that category, the JA is probably the book for you. Personally, however, I usually like to read "serious" works of history. History-lite just doesn't seem worth my time....
   
   Not terrible but not recommended.