This is a fun to read, fairly light book that emphasizes the unique characteristics of some of the revolutionary leaders. The overall theme is how different they were from each other, but also how different they were from subsequent generations (e.g. even by the time the Jacksonian era arrived).

This book is a collection of reworked essays profiling the personal qualities and philosophies of the following Founders: Washington, Franklin, Jefferson, Hamilton, Madison, Adams, Paine, and Burr. It serves as an excellent introduction or refresher on the character and qualities of those founders with the central thesis that the very establishment of the American republic guaranteed that the people who would be chosen to lead it would never replicate the quality of the founders.

These founders (with Burr as the outlier) emerged as leaders because they lived in a time where our leaders were chosen precisely because of the quality of their character and their "disinterestedness", ie the perception of their not wanting public life or of being incapable morally of using it for personal profit. This was certainly true of these Founders except for Burr, whose duplicity and evident selfishness brought down his own downfall. By their insistence in placing ultimate power in the people, however, public opinion rather than moral and intellectual superiority began to replace the self-evident quality of character that called on these founders to positions of leadership. Wood traces this downfall specifically to the Sedition Act of 1798, when the Federalist Party sought to dampen the rise of the Republican party, which slandered and debased John Adams and even Washington himself. It was then that what was said about a person began to emerge as the most important quality in political leaders, with the ugly election of 1800 the result. Public opinion, informed or not, became most important, and the best and the brightest were no longer necessarily called to public service or indeed elected. One simply needs to look to the rise of Andrew Jackson, the most admired President of our current un-intellectual POTUS 45, to see how quickly this became true. A great primer on the personalities of the above Founders and always a joy to read Gordon Wood.

A series of vivid sketches of America’s “founders.” (One no longer uses the term “Founding Fathers” – though they still all happen to be male.) Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Madison, Hamilton, Thomas Paine, Benjamin Franklin – and lastly, Aaron Burr. Wood has a particular thesis for each, which tends to get repetitious, the worst being the case of John Adams, who really seems to piss Wood off.

Wood’s main argument: what made the Founders different than subsequent generations was that they were aristocrats, in some cases self-made, but with all the inherent traits of gentry: politesse, noblesse oblige, a chaste yearning for fame. They were, in particular, rich guys transformed by the Enlightenment into civilized revolutionaries. And the revolution was a real one, according to Wood – not a mere nationalist rebellion, but an attempt to perfect humanity. Without monarchy, they reasoned, we’d have peace, education, busy commerce, land for all. Slavery would die out on its own, most of our foundational thinkers believed. Society would be egalitarian, though of course guided by wise patricians like themselves. (Some of the Founders – including Washington! – lived long enough to see their dreams shattered by a bunch of low-class hustlers – the new Americans – with no respect for their “betters.”)

"Despite periodic biographies and occasional op-ed tributes in the Wall Street Journal, it seems unlikely that Hamilton can ever acquire a warm place in the hearts of most Americans." Haha, I'd love to see Mr. Wood react to that statement now.

In this post-Hamilton world, people seem to know a lot more about our founding fathers as real people, not just faces on coins and textbooks. Still, I like the approach of this book, showing how each man was actually a human with a personality, and how that determined the role he played in the revolution. There were insightful discussions of how our "nobility" in the Americas compared to the English, and why the chip on all of their shoulders allowed for such radical social changes. They still had to prove themselves as being of high morals to be accepted as leaders, a trend that unfortunately did not last. They all believed in democracy, but had different visions for how it should or could be carried out.

George Washington was the only truly "heroic" character, and he spent his entire life cultivating that image. James Madison and Alexander Hamilton were the most realistic, and I believe they deserve all the credit they get for setting up our country's systems. One side-note, while I have no problem with the multi-racial casing of "Hamilton," it does bug me that these men were both portrayed as large, when this book clearly shows that their small stature was drove them to always try to prove themselves.

Ben Franklin wasn't quite as important as I thought. I didn't realize how much of his persona was an act, and how absent he was during important events. Still a genius, but more of a figure than a fighter. John Adams & Tom Paine were not likable at all, but they got stuff done that we needed them to, and they were true to what they personally believed, even when it went against the crowd.

I will probably never like Thomas Jefferson. I think he might be the biggest hypocrite in American history. He wrote so much about philosophical ideals for our country that he did not live up to. That being said, we do have to be grateful for him as a president, especially since the alternative, Aaron Burr, might have been the worst thing to ever happen to our country.