Zelanator reviewed Founding Brothers by Joseph J. Ellis
Review of 'Founding Brothers' on 'Goodreads'
4 stars
It has been some time since I have read a scholarly work on the Revolutionary/Early Republic period. I think I made a good choice reading Ellis' work. It has some stylistic problems that annoyed me to an extent (more below), but I do not think this book warrants some of the hatred it has received on Goodreads.
Ellis' argument is mostly historiographical in that he tries to swing the pendulum away from the recent focus on "marginal" groups back toward an appreciation of how the "band of brothers" who drafted the U.S. Constitution faced myriad political, economic, and personal contingencies in their efforts to get the nation going. He makes this point abundantly clear in the introduction, writing that "the central events and achievements of the revolutionary era and the early republic were political. These events and achievements are historically significant because they shaped the subsequent history of the United …
It has been some time since I have read a scholarly work on the Revolutionary/Early Republic period. I think I made a good choice reading Ellis' work. It has some stylistic problems that annoyed me to an extent (more below), but I do not think this book warrants some of the hatred it has received on Goodreads.
Ellis' argument is mostly historiographical in that he tries to swing the pendulum away from the recent focus on "marginal" groups back toward an appreciation of how the "band of brothers" who drafted the U.S. Constitution faced myriad political, economic, and personal contingencies in their efforts to get the nation going. He makes this point abundantly clear in the introduction, writing that "the central events and achievements of the revolutionary era and the early republic were political. These events and achievements are historically significant because they shaped the subsequent history of the United States, including our own time. The central players in the drama were not the marginal or peripheral figures, whose lives are more typical, but rather the political leaders at the center of the national story who wielded power." I essentially agree with Ellis that we cannot appreciate the broad contours of this period (or firmly grasp the major issues at stake) if we completely elide the central and key actors. But, of course, Ellis has received an enormous amount of criticism from scholars of the social justice bent who have uncharitably pointed to his (and Gordon Wood's) work as legitimizing the marginalization of peoples during the period.
Ellis organizes the book around six vignettes the focus on several key actors: Alexander Hamilton, Aaron Burr, Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, James Madison, and John Adams. Throughout Ellis emphasizes historical contingency, explains how lasting friendships often played a decisive role in key Congressional decisions, and attempts to recapture the true meaning of terms like 'American,' 'patriot,' 'republican,' and 'honor' for the 1790s.
My one quibble with the book concerns Ellis' penchant for certain words. For example, "congealed" seems to appear in the text way too frequently. Again, just my pet peeve. I would recommend this book to anyone interested in the Early Republic and the broad political, social, and economic issues of the time. Ellis' interrogation of the Jefferson-Adams friendship from the 1790s through 1820s has now motivated me to pick up Gordon Wood's "Friends Divided" that further delves into the Jefferson-Adams relationship.
