This is not a book that you can zoom through. It is however a thoughtful, well-researched look at seven men who shaped the US and looks mostly at the time after the Revolutionary War ended and the country had to find a way to succeed in this experiment in self-government. These men - George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin, James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and Aaron Burr - are at the crux of historic events and helped shape what came later. It is enlightening how fragile the country was for the first 50 or so years (1776 - 1826) and how much controversy there was over how the country would be governed.

The author explores six topics:

- the duel between Hamilton and Burr
- a dinner, brokered by Jefferson, where Madison and Hamilton came to a compromise regarding key items. Madison agreed to not block key provisions of a fiscal plan Hamilton wanted, in return for Hamilton's support for locating the national capital on the Potomac.
- the tacitly agreed upon silence regarding the question of slavery. While many wanted this addressed as inconsistent with the founding principles of the American Revolution, others were worried about the tenuous state of the country and the need for the support of Southern states (especially Virginia). They knew that this question would continue to arise until addressed and still their silence on the subject condemned the country to a Civil War to decide the course of the nation.
- Washington's farewell and the significance of the transfer of power. It was a fragile time in the country and Washington could have likely stayed in office until his death. He left a message - unity at home and neutrality abroad - that is still examined and debated. Of course, some of the message was meant to help the US avoid a war with England that it could scarcely undertake when he left office in 1797. He even predicted that the country would need 20 (more) years to prepare for such a war (and so pretty closely predicted the War of 1812).
- the sometimes contentious relationship between Adams and Jefferson. Jefferson was Adams' vice president and yet undermined some of his policies. The book discusses the role Abigail played as a sounding board for her husband as well as the role of Madison as a surrogate for some of Jefferson's policies.
- the resumption of the friendship between Adams and Jefferson at the end of their political careers, mostly known through their correspondence.

It is an interesting look at the period between the end of the Revolutionary War and 1826 when Adams and Jefferson both died on July 4th. I took it slowly because it is dense (and yes the criticism that Ellis used excessive polysyllabic words when less obscure ones would have sufficed is valid - keep a dictionary and thesaurus handy) but also because it was needed to absorb all the info here.

Quotes I liked:

Throughout the Farewell Address Washington had been exhorting Americans to think of themselves as a collective unit with a common destiny. To our ears, it sounds so obvious because we occupy the future location that Washington envisioned. But his exhortations toward national unity were less descriptions than anticipations, less reminders of the way we were than predictions of what we could become....In the end, the Farwell Address was primarily a great prophecy, accompanied by advice about how to make it come true.

They [Adams and Jefferson] were an incongruous pair...the Yankee and the Cavalier, the orator and the writer, the bulldog and the greyhound. They were the odd couple of the American Revolution.

I have one shelf of books that are "keepers", not to be given away under any circumstances. Founding Brothers will now be added to the shelf. There have been countless books written on the Revolutionary War period and the key figures that propelled the action. Too often the protagonists are pictured as monolithic idols, guys with long white hair who spoke with a British accent, but who got along famously and put the principles of life, liberty, and happiness above any personal feelings. This short book paints a somewhat different picture, as it delves into the very different mindsets of these prime movers (particularly Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Hamilton, and Madison) and their associates (Franklin, Burr, and Abigail Adams) on key questions facing the new nation, specifically a) slavery, b) a strong central government vs. state's rights, c) the location of the nation's capital, d) the birth of political parties, and e) the assumption of state's war debts by the federal government. Along the way we also see the bitterness that certain "brothers" felt for others, the nasty exchanges in letters and newspapers (not unlike today), and the fundamental disagreements that were never personally resolved, although a victor was ultimately named by history.

The author does all of this through 6 interwoven short stories involving 1) the Burr/Hamilton shoot-out, 2) a pivotal dinner between Madison and Jefferson (on the Republican side) and Hamilton (a Federalist), 3) the political machinations that kept slavery on the back burner throughout the early years of the republic, despite a general feeling that it was an abhorrent practice, 4) the story behind George Washington's famous farewell address to the nation, 5) the collaboration between Jefferson and Madison, on one side, and the Adamses (John and Abigail) on the other, as both groups strove for the presidency when it was considered gauche to campaign for office, and 6) the correspondence between Adams and Jefferson -- on-again/off-again friends --
after both had retired from public life, as each tried to explain their views on government to the other, and to history at large.

This is not a daunting read. The author won a Pulitzer Prize for it, not because of its overwhelming detail but because he was able to inject feelings, thoughts, and rationale into those fabulous characters we thought we knew so well. It's a keeper.

Founding Brothers by Joseph Ellis is lively, well-written book, which argues that the founders succeeded not because they liked each other or got along, most of the time they didn't, but because they resolved their differences by doing politics face to face.

Ellis writes in vivid images and analogies but is sometimes too wordy for his own good. For instance, Ellis demonstrates that Adams wanted, in modern terms, to "deconstruct" all romanticized accounts of the founding. But this is because Adams thought the historians of his day didn't do justice to the greatness of his own contribution. Ellis writes: "At its nub, his [Adam's] critique of the historical fictions circulating as seductive truths was much like a campaign to smash all the statures, because the sculptor had failed to render a satisfactory likeness of yours truly" (217). What a vivid and memorable sentence, but could've been more effective if shortened into a punch.

Ellis goes on to show just how much the ambitious Adams wanted to be the central figure of the American pantheon of heroes. When Adams was hidden between the lines given to Washington and Jefferson, he wanted to grab the pages of history and start shredding. Privately he mocked Washington for his lack of classical education and once referred to him (though not cited in Ellis) as "old mutton head." Ellis says Washington read mostly newspapers.

Adams was almost post modern in wanting to show that reality defies neat dissection into good guys sporting white hats and bad guys in black hats. He especially wanted to expose Jefferson's betrayals of the Adam's administration. He also wanted to vindicate himself to his critics showing, among other things, that he was responsible for averting war with France in 1800 and not interested in creating an Adam's dynasty by passing on the presidency to John Quincy.

Ellis shows that Adams was jealous of Jefferson because the July 4th Declaration of Independence came to be seen as the defining moment of the new nation. Instead, Adams pointed to the debates in Congress that made that declaration possible. It turns out that Jefferson hadn't participate in those debates, shy as he was, but Adams held forth there and won the day when, on MAY 15, 1776, "Congress passed a resolution calling for new constitutions in each of the states" (242-43).

This was definitive, Adams thought, because the states were creating "separate and independent American governments" and thus breaking with their British Charters. This was the true and original declaration of independence. He looked back on Jefferson's writing of the Declaration as a historical accident that occurred because Adams himself deferred to his junior partner in order to give him something to do. Why couldn't people like his historian friend Mercy Otis Watson see John Adams as the ultimate American hero that he was?

Ellis also argues that historians do their best work when they realize that history doesn't look inevitable at the moment when it was happening. Historians must give uncertainty back to the actors in the historical moment, while also considering the outcomes from the modern vantage point. He writes: "We need a historical perspective that frames the issues with one eye on the precarious contingencies felt at the time, while the other eye looks forward to the more expansive consequences perceived dimly, if at all, by those trapped in the moment. We need, in effect, to be nearsighted and farsighted at the same time" (6-7). Ellis is the master of using alliteration like "contingencies" and "consequences," which stick in the mind. He is the truly rare combination of a competent historian and clear writer. He proves his thesis in spades showing how the founding fathers were indeed brothers who succeeded not because they didn't clash, but because they looked at each other across the table of creative compromise.

Unfortunately, many of the compromises, like the three-fifths compromise, just prolonged the debate until the slave question erupted into civil war. The founding fathers also feuded over whether federal or state power had ultimate sovereignty. This too was finally settled by civil war, and yet the debate goes on in the fallout over how much federal power should be wielded over states, private individuals, and corporations.

In terms of feuding fathers, one squabble went out with a bang, but Ellis argues that the Burr-Hamilton duel was an anomaly. Most quarrels were settled like the Hamilton-Madison argument over whether the federal government should shoulder the burden of state debts after the Revolution. Hamilton, the federalist of federalists, wanted the government to assume this responsibility for the states it was going to rule. Madison feared this would make the states dependent upon and thus subservient to federal power. Jefferson invited the two disputants to dinner, where Madison promised not to make it a hill to die on as long as the future capitol would reside in Virginia. Jefferson and Adams feuded over Jefferson's role in paying a newspaper to print libels against Adams when they were serving together as President and Vice President. Adams had some newspaper men thrown in prison under his controversial "Alien and Sedition Acts" and probably wished he could do the same to his VP. But even this row resolved itself as the two "explained" themselves to each other through statesman like correspondence in their twilight years.

It was the Founders way to feud, and then work it out after "looking each other in the eye." The founders successfully created a new nation because they talked, broke bread together, and lived cooperatively. They would probably be amazed that their union is still together and using their legacy to debate the same issues. But today's political wars tend to be fought on the impersonal battle fields of cyber space and the air waves. Could we accomplish more by settling our differences in community, instead of demonizing each other to our constituents in the partisan media outlets or over twitter or facebook? I think Ellis's Founding Brothers suggests we could.

I thought this was a great history book. I didn't know very much about James Madison at all before this so it was good to learn about him. I always love anything with George Washington. If you want a short book on some American History, this is a good one.

As a lover of all things historical and a casual reader of history books, I thought that Founding Brothers: The Revolutionary Generation was very informative and educational. I learned many things about America's founding fathers and the revolutionary period of history that I didn't previously know. The book is laid out in six separate vignettes, each following a crucial event in that era of history: the duel between Aaron Burr and Alexander Hamilton; a private deal that was made between Hamilton, James Madison and Thomas Jefferson on the location of the new capitol in exchange for passage of Hamilton's finance plan; the silence of the founding fathers on the issue of slavery; George Washington's farewell to public service; the sometimes contentious collaboration between John Adams and Thomas Jefferson in the years following Washington's presidency; and the renewal of Adams and Jefferson's friendship in their waning years. The book is also something of a character sketch of each of these key players in America's history.

The thing I enjoyed most about Founding Brothers: The Revolutionary Generation, were all the little facts and anecdotes I was able to glean from the text. Things like the loving, devoted marriage that John and Abigail Adams shared, in which he seemed to view her as his equal and value her political counsel above all others. Joseph Ellis has compiled a volume of John and Abigail's letters to each other which I think might make for interesting follow-up reading. Another fascinating little tidbit I learned was that John Adams and Thomas Jefferson died within hours of each other on the 50th anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Independence (July 4, 1826). Also, as someone who is intrigued by forensic science, I found the forensic-style analysis of the Burr/Hamilton duel to be very engaging. It's all the little things that always help to bring history alive for me, and many small details like these were woven in with lots of scholarly prose to make a strong narrative that would, in my opinion, be useful to anyone looking to learn more about American history. I would warn the casual reader though, that the academic nature of the book does not make for light reading, but neither is it so complex as to be completely inaccessible to the general reader. While I didn't find it to be entirely dull and boring, it did have a slow pace that failed to fully spark my interest and hold my attention. It actually took me quite a while to finish the book, but I'm glad that I did. I was not at all surprised to find that this book was the recipient of the Pulitzer Prize for history.

I picked the book up to have ungrudgingly become a member of posterity that Founding Fathers aimed to confide. Ellis keeps historical account curt, freeing up much space for their interpersonal affairs that have prodded at my sensibility. Historian’s job - to connect the dots and conjure up a story - has occupied a large and more exciting part of this book. It has set a buoyant tone for the book, that what is normally seen as triviality has reversed its place with historical events here. I therefore beseech any Founding Father who was peeping through the chinks of clouds to forgive my levity and languor. Ellis even writes earthly matters with such rigour that had my simple mind entangled and shallow attention divested. He’s a good historian though. Without his rigour, every scrap of imagination wouldn’t have been cogent; I wouldn’t have unreservedly annotated the morals. History rhymes itself. Present-day dissensions are no more than a mirror of their predecessors. We don’t have to be Washingtonian hero to be qualified for bearing similarity to our ancestors, and watching out for their mistakes. The morals of history do not nullify outside the realm of politics likewise.

I concede that the way I appraise the book seems to render it typical of all scholarly history books, and I don’t plan to vindicate. Everyone enjoys a book for different reasons. It pleases me because of existentialism, ordinariness and humanity uniquely vested in this book. When you think of other accounts of the same era, contrary moods are often displayed.

no

This book is a collection of essays that delve into the details of several important relationships between members of the revolutions generation. It is quite good, though it delves into details assuming that the reader already has a basic understanding of the primary events of the early years of our country. Most of the essay are very interesting. More than one of them discusses aspects of the slavery question that helped me gain a better understanding of the situation. For example, I feel that many people today look back on the Founding Fathers as just a bunch of racists that refused to stop slavery in the country when the had the chance. However, the author shows that most of them understood that slavery was great evil, but that, as George Washington said "Slavery was a cancer on the body politic of America that could not at present be removed without killing the patient."

Washington and others saw clearly that the union could not be made without compromise with the southern colonies on the subject of slavery. So, was the formation of the Union worth such compromise? My conclusion based on what I learned in this book and others is that yes, the formation of the United States of America has been of general benefit to mankind, and therefore was worth the compromises on slavery required.

This gave me even more respect for the Federalists (and more sympathy for John Adams) and less for Thomas Jefferson. If the US ascribed to Jeffersonian philosophy entirely, it would have had to endure a never ending series of revolutions and civil wars. Also, for Jefferson to pretend like he was a man of the masses is laughable and hypocritical. Eller, at one point, paraphrases Adams on the absurdity of Jeffersonian philosophy on aristocracy, “In a separate correspondence about the same time with John Taylor another prominent Virginia planter and political thinker who had questioned Adams’s views on aristocracy, Adams called attention to the irony of the situation. The son of a New England farmer and shoemaker was being accused of aristocratic allegiances by an owner of slaves with vast estates, much of both inherited from his wife’s side of the family.” This passage is not directly about Jefferson, but adequately applies to the Jeffersonian anomaly where one advocates liberty, and democracy by the masses, rails against any sort of central power and primogeniture while being a wealthy aristocratic planter, and depriving people of their liberty.

Nonetheless, the main focus of this book deals with the legacy of the American Revolution. For Jefferson, the revolution was a movement against tyranny and centralized government. For the Federalists, it was a movement against tyranny, but it also was about the creation of a national identity that unified the states and forced them to pledge loyalty to the Constitution.

Some writers call them founding fathers, this guy call em brothers, it's a family tree what doesn't make much sense but it's okay, mine is confusin too.

It starts with two brothers fighting Cane and Abel style only these are named Burr and Hamilton. They don't have much strength in they arm muscles so they go right to fighting with pistols. I won't spoil it for you by telling which one does the dying but at one point Washington says ______ where is your brother? His blood cries out to me. And ____ says "I left his blood soaked carcass on a cliff in New Jersey. Go get him if ya can't stand cryin blood so much."

Other stories include Daddy Washington saying farewell to his country. The country was sad on account of it never having lived without its daddy before. The brother Adams and Jefferson take the helm and they too almost turned out to Cane and Abel each other but they didn't have the fighting spirit no more. So they got old and they died, but they wrote to each other to tell the other how much he loved him (not in the way I'm sure you're thinking. Or maybe it is. History is a little uncertain here.)

As always the story turns to the subject of slavery and how come these massive titans of strength and smartness didn't do nothing about it. Well, turns out they weren't as clever or as strong or as brave or as sensible as we were taught in the school. They had a bunch of flaws and they lack of action caused a lot of people to get hurt and die.

...In seriousness - Good book for those who know little about them and for those who know a lot it is a fine refresher.

It's not every day that one comes across a pristine copy (with a library-type dust jacket) of a Pulitzer Prize winning history book in a used book store with the opportunity to procure it for $3. It was an opportunity not to be passed up. And it pretty much lived up to expectations. The author, Joseph Ellis, is one of the nation's leading experts on the founding period and in this book he provides a tremendous amount of insight into that revolutionary generation. In many ways, this is an old-fashioned study, as its focus is on a handful of the "great men" of the Revolution. But it is not a narrative of the events of that era, but rather a series of vignettes, each with its own lesson about the nature of the early American experiment. Ellis examines the Burr vs. Hamilton duel as an illustration of how exceptional it was for American political differences in that time period to result in violence. He next looks at the dinner where Hamilton, Jefferson, and Madison made some very significant compromises in their plans for the early American government (the so-called "room where it happened"). A chapter fittingly entitled "The Silence" examines the Founders avoidance of the subject of slavery and the section called "The Farewell" is about Washington's departure from the presidency. Ellis also looks at a handful of the important "partnerships" that helped to shape the nation's early political life: Adams and Jefferson, Jefferson and Madison, Adams and his wife Abigail. The final chapter, which is about the post-presidential (renewed) friendship of Adams and Jefferson, conducted almost exclusively through letters, is the weakest link, as it does not really offer much new in the way of insight, but instead reaffirms how these two intellectual leaders of the revolutionary period could not really see their way to have an honest exchange about the most pressing issue in American history: slavery. The big takeaway from the book for me was to be reminded that we cannot look back on this period of history from our vantage point a couple of centuries later and assume that the survival and success of the nation was preordained. The Founding depended on the actions of real people, all of them with significant flaws, who had the humility to realize that they were not in possession of all of the answers. In our current state of affairs, where institutions, guardrails, and traditions are seemingly under assault from every direction, it serves us well to realize that these things were created in what was truly an "experiment." It is ironic that we put so much energy in trying to discern that the Founders had in mind when they, themselves, often believed that they were shooting from the hip. Creating marble statues of these men, and putting their likenesses on Mount Rushmore can leave one with the impression that their work was eternal. We are learning that it was not.

Six American Revolutionary history and political science lessons taught masterfully through story telling. Mr. Ellis' scholarly style and soaring prose leave no room for improvement. Could not be better.