I don't like school

Founding Brothers is a deep look at the men who gave the United States its foundation. This book is a Pulitzer Prize winner, but I had trouble enjoying the stories it told. It is such a indepth look at this era that I felt I could only handle small chunks at a time. This would be a great read for someone who has a wealth of prior knowledge about this time in history and wants a closer look at the characters who played a role in our government.

One of the better books of the revolutionary generation I've read. Ellis did a great job bringing them to life and was able to dig into the different motivations and visions each had. Highly recommended to anyone with more than a passing interest in this subject.

not going to rate this because I'm not sure what to give it--and it was required reading

in a nutshell, I would have enjoyed this more if I didn't have to take notes on it

The book purports to be about the following "founding brothers": Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Franklin, Hamilton and Burr. But including Burr as a founding brother is pretty preposterous, and you get the sense he was just there because Ellis couldn't wait to write about The Duel (it is the first chapter of the book). Likewise, there is almost nothing in the book about Franklin.

I didn't like Ellis' writing much: I found it to be plodding and he is fond of overusing certain words, such as, weirdly, "congealed".

There were two passages in the book that I really really liked.

One was about Washington's insistence of building a national University in the new capital. His main argument is that people form their most intense bonds as young people, and that to strengthen the new nation, young men from a diversity of places should mix together at this university. Washington was definitely on to something there.

I also really liked a brief discussion about how Jefferson and Adams in particular tried so hard to control the narrative of history, and about how in many ways Jefferson won out because his narrative had a much more compelling Romantic story structure, while Adams' take was far to realist and nuanced to take hold in the public mind. Ellis also says as an aside that this idea of history getting warped is the main premise of War and Peace, which I have no recollection of whatsoever (I mostly remember the soap opera-y bits of that novel) - so that was an interesting revelation.

What a disappointment. Founding Brothers reads like an apologetic for long-time Founding Father of disrepute, John Adams, whose aggrandizement here expectedly reduces Thomas Jefferson to the dual role of timely revolutionary opportunist and self-deluding contradictorian, which may not be a word. Given this, Adams' non-maneuver of allowing the Treaty of Tripoli to be unanimously ratified by the Senate in 1797 is a conspicuous no-show. Or did it not quite raise the pedestal to advertise his imprimatur on a document which states that our Government is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion? Rather, much effort is given to impute Jefferson for the expanding rift between Monticello and Quincy using examples collectively pettier than the Adams-approved Alien and Sedition Acts which received a page, possibly two, of underwhelming condemnation. I'd say no but I've already eaten it. Blech!

In concept, this is a great book: A look into the personalities and politics of roughly the first decade of the United States, as the men who would become known as the Founding Fathers struggle to turn the new nation into a functioning concern.

In structure, it is a set six incidents that come in for examination. Ellis starts at the end, with the duel between Alexander Hamilton and Aaron Burr. He starts with the basic facts, goes into some controversy/unknowns, then goes into a nice dive into the background of both to show how they came to have a duel in the first place. Then he circles back and attempts to resolve the unknowns of the actual duel. (His thoughts are plausible, but something still seems off to me.)

The remaining chapters are more looks at the evolving national government, the increasing split between proponents of strong and minimal central governments, and the infighting that came with that. He ends with a chapter on the later correspondence between Thomas Jefferson and John Adams, and the slow mending of their friendship as they talked to each other, and quite self-consciously, posterity.

In execution, its a bit mixed. In general, it's readable and fairly informative. I think he presents the political world of these few years fairly well, and I came out of it with a better appreciation of what was going on. The focus on a few 'incidents' keeps it from being as complete a narrative as I might like, but keeps the book well focused, and prevents it from ballooning out of control. However....

The biggest problem is that he occasionally says something that in the context of what he's talking about is correct, if you remember to apply that context. However, the term has a completely different meaning today, and Ellis throws out no signs that the first thing a reader will think of is the wrong answer. The example that caught my immediate attention was the use of the term "American Southwest", which means the region roughly from Texas to California. Which is nonsense in 1800, and he's really talking about the southwestern part of the then-US, namely the rough area of modern Mississippi and Alabama. But if you aren't grounded a bit in the period... well I wouldn't blame you for getting the wrong idea (especially since he even capitalizes it, really implying the modern term). However, more seriously, Ellis throws around the term "Republican" (as in the political party) a few times, which, for the people involved, is shorthand for the "Democratic-Republican" party, which through splits and such can be considered ancestral to both modern major US parties, but more directly precedes the Democrats than the Republicans. Not that either party today would be recognizable to someone in 1860 (where we at least have the modern names already), much less back in 1800. So its possible to get a completely wrong idea from terms that are technically correct, because Ellis is extremely careless with them on occasion.

Other than that warning, the writing is good, it's an entertaining popular history book, and does a good job helping bring these people to life. I recommend it, but you do need to read with some appropriate caution.

Using six pivotal moments that helped forge the young American Republic as the basis for this book, author Joseph Ellis, explores how some of the most influential men of the Revolutionary Era guided the 13 fledgling states through the most fraughtful time in the history of the United States. The 1790s saw these men through a tumultuous period in which former friends with competing visions became enemies, as each attemtpted to steer the new nation down a path that would guide it to becoming one of the most powerful and influential nations in the world. Hamilton's famous duel, Washington's Farewell Address, Adams presidency and partnership with his wife Abigail, the backroom dealings that settled the debate over the location of the national capital, Franklin's end of life effort to force Congress to analyze the slavery question so neatly sidestepped in the Constitution, and the correspondence between Adams and Jefferson following their presidencies are each examined and put in their proper place as the moments that made the United States what it would eventually become.

As the winner of the Pulitzer Prize for non-fiction, I expected a lot from this book. I was not disappointed. Ellis is never dry in his historical analysis, though as I have noted before in past reviews he is also not drawn to the narrative either. I find his interpretation and exploration of the events insightful and educational. His history is concise, never overwhelming the reader, but it is meticulously researched and accompanied by copious notes for those who wish to read more. I highly recommend this book to anyone who wants to know more about the development of the United States post-Revolution. It is an excellent introduction and jumping off point for those with an interest in the formation of the U.S.A. and provides many directions for further exploration.

Historian Joseph Ellis's thesis seems to be that the so-called "Founding Fathers" may be better understood as "Founding Brothers," men who were peers, who watched history unfold in realtime, men who made mistakes and sometimes learned and sometimes didn't.
This expansive history examines these very human figures in the context of (mainly) the 1790's and brings them to life through the lenses of six different events.
Though this was my second reading of this excellent book, I found much that I had missed the first time and got a lot out of the additional read.
These men (and Abigail) were certainly brilliant and talented, but Ellis does a great job casting light on their humanity and imperfections. Jefferson comes off as a brilliant statesman, but also as a conniving self-serving, self-deluded little weasel. Adams is perhaps the greatest genius of his generation, but is held captive to a grudge-bearing, emotionally self-destructive nature and is quite pitiful in the end. Hamilton, while also a courageous architect of our national system, harbored dark impulses to dictatorial power and almost certainly schemed to establish himself as an American proto-Napoleon.
Far from degrading their accomplishments, these revelations only amplify the marvel at what these flawed men accomplished.

I cannot figure out how this book won a Pulitzer... It reminds me more of a last minute term paper than a book on history. Ellis enjoys using huge words, which is fine in some cases, but not when discussing already confusing policy issues of the 1790s. At times, the excerpts from actual documents at the time made more sense than the author's commentary. I would suggest that if you're interested in learning about this time period, reading a different book. I didn't want to quit halfway through and I'm not exaggerating when I say the last two paragraphs were the best in the entire thing. It still pisses me off that Ellis won an award for this dreck, but Languth did not for Patriots.

i’ve never been so happy to finish a book, but it was so hard to read this with pleasure, and i’m so glad it’s over

Subtitle: The Revolutionary Generation

Four presidents (Washington, Adams, Jefferson, and Madison), two guys who got their pictures on our currency without being presidents (Hamilton, Franklin), and the infamous Aaron Burr. It's a varied bunch, and it leads one to wonder what, if anything, can tie their stories together. You might suppose it to be the American Revolution. You'd be wrong.

In fact, “Founding Brothers” is not really a book about the American Revolution, it's about the first generation to live in the new Republic. In particular, those former revolutionaries who set about trying to make their country actually function as an independent state.

The book opens strong, with an in-depth analysis of the duel between Burr and Hamilton, which resulted in Hamilton's death and the end of Burr's political future. Did Burr intend to kill Hamilton? Did Hamilton understand the risk? What were they really dueling for, anyway? This is a tricky topic, and Ellis does a good job of explaining both what is known, and what is and will likely forever remain unknown.

Next, he looks at the most vexing question for any student of early American history: why couldn't this bunch of revolutionaries, committed to the Rights of Man, abolish slavery while they were at it? We learn that Ben Franklin's last public writing was a satirical rewriting of then current defenses of slavery, as spoken by an imagined Moorish slave-owner who was justifying his capture and oppression of white Europeans. If Franklin had lived longer, or had taken up this cause earlier, would it have helped? Perhaps not; Ellis' portrays the reaction of the other “brothers”, and we are given the distinct impression of a bunch of people trying hard to avoid making eye contact. This part of the book was hard to read, on account of the topic, but it was well-handled by Ellis.

Then, he takes us through the earliest example of a complete and total breakdown in American bipartisanship, the split between Federalists and what we now call Democratic-Republicans (they were called Republicans at the time, but this is a bit confusing because they were the antecedents of the modern Democratic party). Here, Ellis is at his weakest. He is clearly trying to burnish Adams' reputation, still sullied from the Alien and Sedition Acts (the Patriot Act of their day, although all things considered even worse).

His biggest problem, in fact, is that for all his attempts to present the Adams-Jefferson feud in an even-handed manner, he is so obviously bent on rectifying the traditional pro-Jefferson tilt of most American history books that he overshoots in the other direction. Jefferson's every flaw is magnified, and Adams' every flaw is apologized for. In reality, I came away with the distinct impression that John Adams was the neo-conservative of his day, strong on central authority, not so big on civil liberties, and if you weren't with him, you were against him. I don't think this was the impression Ellis was trying to give.

The last, and perhaps the strongest, part of the book is the section on George Washington. For all his fame, he is a bit of a cipher to the average modern American. This, I realized, was what Ellis was leading up to, and why he put Washington last, instead of first. Washington was not as mercurial as Burr, not as hungry for power as Hamilton, not as eager to hold a grudge as John Adams. He was less of an apologist for slavery (he took pains to make sure that all his slaves would be freed after he and his wife were dead, unlike Jefferson or Madison). He was a patriot in the fight against the British crown, but refused to take partisan sides thereafter. He walked away from power well before he had to, setting a precedent that lasted for over a century.

He warned us against entangling alliances with other countries, and warned us against the divisiveness of political parties. He was a military hero who resolutely steered us away from taking sides in the wars between France and Britain, at a time when many of his peers were advocating it. He was not perfect, but presented on his own he has not enough imperfection for a proper Shakespearean hero. Where is the tragic flaw?

But, had we a King Lear, or Hamlet, or Macbeth for our first President under the new Constitution, we might not have made it past the first generation of independence. It is a rare sort of revolutionary who is willing (and able) to take on the greatest military power of his time, then steer his country away from any conflict thereafter, and then walk away from power instead of seeking out further conflict. Compare him to any other nation's founder and he comes out on top. Or compare him to his peers. The Founding Fathers, as they are called, were a talented bunch, but not for nothing was Washington the leader of them.

Needless to say, in comparison to the nation's leaders today, the contrast is even more striking. Read this book, flaws and all, and you can be reminded of what a nation's leadership should be capable of.