Yes, I finally finished it after we took a break, but a book should not be that hard to read. The author had a lot of potential and great arguments, but the book read more like a jumbled mess of a philosophy paper where the argument is made in the first 2 pages, and then the rest of it is filler. I don’t want dry additives in my beef. I want sauce.

This is the second time I've read this book, which won the 2001 Pulitzer Prize for History. I don't remember when I first read it. Maybe 10 years ago. Last year I also read "His Excellency," which is Ellis's biography of George Washington.

The book is not a comprehensive history of the Founders, but an account of selected episodes from the late 1700s and early 1800s, examining the complex interactions among eight key players: the Big Six -- George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and Alexander Hamilton -- along with Aaron Burr, and Abigail Adams (John's wife and primary political adviser). These interactions were sometimes collaborative and sometimes deeply antagonistic. At one point they became violent, when Burr killed Hamilton in a duel (the subject of Chapter 1). Ellis notes that the interactions among the Founders represented checks and balances on a personal level, at a time when the United States was more a nation of men, than a nation of laws, institutions, and traditions. Those latter things had not yet congealed.

The founding and early years of the United States were chaotic and improvisational and precarious, a lot messier than we are perhaps led to believe when we first learn about them as children. One of the main points Ellis stresses is the tension between the "spirit of '76" and the "spirit of '87" -- that is, between the ideals of the Declaration of Independence and the ideals of the Constitution. The Declaration was all about self-determination, and a repudiation of power exercised illegitimately from a faraway place. The Constitution, on the other hand, was about replacing the ineffective system of the Articles of Confederation with a consolidated federal government that would be able to get things done. Critics of the Constitution condemned it as a betrayal of revolutionary principles, and feared this new centralized government would inevitably become as corrupt and illegitimate as the one just overthrown. It took a lot of effort by the Founders to convince the electorate that the new government was a necessary compromise to meet national needs.

On one extreme, many Americans today view the Founders as near-demigods. On the other extreme, some view the Founders with mostly disdain -- a group of wealthy men of European descent who enslaved people of African descent, started the process of wiping out Native American peoples and cultures, and prohibited women from participating in political affairs. Ellis, I think, does a good job of navigating between these two extremes, honoring the elements of truth in each, and giving us a portrait of men who were both extraordinarily talented, and flawed. They did not fix the nation's original sin of slavery -- instead, they mostly observed a code of silence about it, and kicked the can down the road (the subject of chapter 3). But they also established a democratic republic, over a large landmass, that has now endured for nearly 250 years, and that over the years has become more inclusive than it was. Historically speaking, this is an unprecedented achievement.

A wonderful book... save for one item that bothers me so much I give it a 3-star review instead of 4. Joseph J. Ellis tries to convince us that these great men were "posing" for history; that they knew the historic significance of everything they did, and wanted to set a standard for generations to follow.

I respectfully disagree, and prefer David McCullough's approach to history. Speaking at Brigham Young Univeristy in 2005, McCullough said:

"[N]obody ever lived in the past. Jefferson, Adams, George Washington—they didn’t walk around saying, “Isn’t this fascinating living in the past? Aren’t we picturesque in our funny clothes?” They were living in the present, just as we do. The great difference is that it was their present, not ours. And just as we don’t know how things are going to turn out, they didn’t either."

I propose that what we now call the "posing" and "posturing" of great men three centuries ago was more an effort to refine themselves and be the highest quality men they could be, as opposed to being so worried about history would record them. The drive to continually improve oneself isn't as popular an idea in our current world - and may never be popular again. I wish Joseph Ellis represented this as an essential trait in the Art of Manliness, rather than saying they were constantly looking into the generations ahead, wanting to be considered as giants. Their magnitude came from efforts to improve their person; not from worrying about the future generations.

Joseph J Ellis describes the backstory to several topics people interested in the Revolutionary Period are often interested in. Invariably the Historical Participants were worried about worldvkew, character, honor and possibilities until a certain level of inevitability happened.

1. About Hamilton-Burr Duel.

2. About the Federal Capital Compromise.

3. About the Silence about Slavery Question.

4. About Washington's Farewell Address.

5. About Political-Personal Relationships among the main political actors of the Revolutionary Period.

6. About the Adams-Jefferson Political-Personal Relationship.

Ellis proposes that telling the story backwards--stating the topic and then saying what informed the main event--lends itself new awareness on a topic in a new way. As continue to read what happened before and after the Revolutionary Period, I find myself relying on these new awareness.

I am glad I took this book off of my physical bookcase.

While nothing "new" if you have any familiarity with the Founding Fathers, the analysis of their relationships proved surprisingly insightful. I genuinely enjoyed this one. In particular, I appreciated the author's rebuttal of the allegations that the founders stated "all men are created equal" but didn't know what that actually meant (since many still owned slaves) and the description of Jefferson and Adams's final letters. I was genuinely emotional by the time the book mentioned their deaths!
While not the most engaging book in the world, it is worth a read if you like revolutionary war history.

As it is in most families, siblings can be very different both in physical characteristics as well as personality traits. It was no different for these founding “brothers”. After independence was gained in 1776, Ellis shares with us the good, the bad and the ugly of these seven men and how they personally thought the republic should be carried out based on their ideas of the constitution, what our independence meant and their own personal convictions and goals. As Ellis points out, these guys knew they were making history and everything we see today was intentionally shared for posterity. At times, they seemed like egotistical, cry babies. Even George Washington felt he had to justify himself in his farewell address. This is a interesting read and I do appreciate history more now than I did 25 years ago in high school. Ellis does an excellent job breaking down a decade of history for a non-historian like myself to enjoy and understand.

On this re-read, this book leaves the same impression it left originally: This is the book I recommend whenever anyone asks me for a book recommendation about The Revolution. I don’t recommend it because it’s the best or my favorite (McCullough’s John Adams gets that award) but because it’s short and in a series of separate glimpses at the founders, Ellis gives a sense of the men who founded the United States, as well as how incredible their accomplishment was.

In an age where people rename schools and streets because of they share the names of these men, it is worthwhile to recall how much they achieved and how hard it was to create our imperfect union. On this read, I enjoyed Ellis’s long treatment of the slavery debate among the founders. Not just the Constitutional compromise but their thoughts as slavery came up later, including the many suggestions for how to overcome what they all saw as a stain on America’s founding principles. It is intellectually lazy to dismiss the slave-owners and those who compromised as terrible people and sellouts without exploring the depths of their rationale for the compromises they considered and arrived at, as well as their ongoing pain admitting their failures on this point. Ellis travels these waters.

Ellis wrote both an Adams and a Jefferson biography—and thus gives those two and especially their long relationship a lot of time. I can never get enough of Adams and it was fun to sit with them for a little while again.

This book was physically and emotionally painful to read. I don't think I've ever disliked a book more. I tried REALLY hard to think of something positive to say about this book. The language made it extremely frustrating to read. I wouldn't be surprised if Ellis wrote this book with a thesaurus and a list of SAT words by his side. This book was extremely wordy and it took an endless amount of pages to express a single point. This book does not even deserve one star. The best part of the book was when it was finally over.

Brilliant! Because of this book, I have gotten so into the "Founding Brothers" of the American Revolution (especially John Adams), that they're the first thing on my mind when I wake up in the morning.

For a long time, I've been puzzled by how a big dreamer like Thomas Jefferson could uphold the ideals of the American Declaration of Independence, while being a slaveowner himself. This book explains it! Finally!

I've also wondered what kind of debates, if any, were going on in Congress about the slave question during the birth of the republic, and this book goes into detail about all the arguments used before and against. And then it explains how Congress made the decision, upheld by George Washington himself (p. 118), as well as James Madison, Jefferson, and others, to make emancipation of slaves something that could never again be discussed in Congress! This was back in the 1790s!!!!

WOW! No wonder the abolitionists never made any progress on that front.

HERE'S HOW IT HAPPENED: The consensus among the more guilt-ridden Founding Brothers was that the states would eventually (not too far into the future) emancipate the slaves themselves, of their accord. The more guilt-ridden Founding Brothers also consoled themselves with the idea that Congress would never allow the expansion of slavery into the new territories. The Founding Brothers from Virginia (such as Washington, Jefferson, and Madison) considered slavery to be an evil brought by England to states where it was currently. Although it was evil, they did not want to end it on their own turf because they wanted to keep their slaves. They were sure that slavery would not expand geographically, and that where it did exist, slavery would would eventually cease through voluntary emancipation by slave holders.

HOW WRONG THEY WERE! Oh my gosh. The folks in South Carolina and Georgia had every intention of extending slavery into the new territories, and that's exactly what they did. Hello, Alabama, Mississippi, and Louisiana! Yahooo.

In the 1790s, Congress thought the slave population of 700,000-plus was too much to deal with ... therefore, the SIZE of the slave population was a big stumbling block for reaching any resolution. (Abolitionists thought, "Gee, we don't want to conmingle with the freed slaves, but how will we compensate slaveowners for 700,000 worth of people property, if the federal government emancipates the slaves? And where will the freed slaves go? Will we send them back to Africa, or create a special territory for them out in the boondocks somewhere? All of that would be quite expensive, and we're already in debt as a nation. How will we afford it? Well, I guess there's no good solution. WE GIVE UP.") This potential "problem" of 700,000 freed slaves running amuck was just too difficult to deal with, back in those days. Better to not ever talk about it again (because talking about it was too uncomfortable and indecent for Congress), and let the slaves stay in captivity in the South where they won't bother the northern White people.

But what was the game plan for emancipation, 70 years later when the slave population had grown from 700,000 to 3.9 million? (Hint: THERE WAS NO PLAN!) Sadly, most of the Founding Brothers seemed to hope that if they ignored the "problem," it would go away.

Benjamin Franklin proved to be an interesting case (p. 110). In 1729, Franklin had "begun publishing Quaker tracts against slavery and the slave trade," but:

"... while his antislavery credentials were clear, at one point Franklin had owned a few household slaves himself, and he had never made slavery a priority target or thrown the full weight of his enormous prestige against it.

"Starting in 1787, that changed. At the Constitutional Convention he intended to introduce a proposal calling for the inclusion of a statement of principle, condemning both the slave trade and slavery, thereby making it unequivocally clear that the founding document of the new American nation committed the government to eventual emancipation."

Franklin's withdrew his proposal from the Constitutional Convention in 1789. However, February 12, 1790 (p. 83), one day after Congress received two anti-slavery petitions from Quaker delegations, the Pennsylvania Abolition Society submitted to Congress essentially the same petition as what Franklin had submitted to the Constitution Convention (p. 111), with Benjamin Franklin's signature. This sparked the first public debate about slavery in the new republic, and it was dramatic indeed! Read all about it in the book. But the debate (as mentioned above) was quieted by the resolution passed by the House, saying that Congress would never again be allowed to discuss the issue (p. 118).

On p. 159 (chapter on Washington's "Farewell Address"), I learned that Washington also wrote an "Address to the Cherokee Nation." Here again, I find insight into the conflicted thoughts of at least one Founding Brother: George Washington. Washington thought that the expansion of the white population over the whole continent was inevitable. The only chance of survival for the Cherokee people, Washington thought, was for them to abandon their hunter-gatherer societies and instead embrace farming like the white people. Then, over the next few generations, the Cherokee would be peacefully assimilated into the rest of the white people in America, like any other European ethnic group, I suppose, such as Irish or Russians, etc.

http://founders.archives.gov/document...

Reading this, I felt so sad for the Cherokee ... what a hollow promise this turned out to be. The Cherokee did try to emulate the white man ... they wrote down their language and started printing their own newspapers and making their own "white people style" settlements. Were they listening to what Washington had suggested? Perhaps they were. But they were still torn from their lands in Georgia, South Carolina, per the Indian Removal Act of 1830.

http://www.cherokee.org/AboutTheNatio...

It's just another example of how some of the Founding Brothers' optimistic hopes for the nation did not pan out.

I was fascinated by the deeper look into the psyches of John Adams and Thomas Jefferson, in the chapters called "The Collaborators" and "The Friendship." Given the elevated historical status Jefferson enjoys, compared to John Adams, it's amazing how DEAD WRONG Jefferson was about most things, and how right John Adams' intuitions were. Also it saddened me to hear what a duplicitous scoundrel Jefferson was. As Ellis stated in the book, Jefferson was a traitor to the U.S. and by today's standards could be tried as such.

(p. 199) "By modern standards Jefferson's active role in promoting anti-Adams propaganda and his complicity in leaking information to pro-French enthusiasts like Bache were impeachable offenses that verged on treason ... And his conduct in providing clandestine instructions to Adams's cabinet undermined the constitutional authority of the executive branch in ways that would have landed him in jail in modern times. Only ten years after the passage and ratification of the Constitution, however, what were treasonable or seditious acts remained blurry and more problematic judgments without the historical sanction that only experience could provide."

(Ha! I think Ellis made a mistake; doesn't it look like he left out some words around "more problematic judgments" ... ?)

Jefferson was also guilty of spreading false rumors to tarnish the reputations of his political opponents ... a practice that is very common today and that I totally despise. (SWIFT BOAT VETERANS, ANYONE????) And here was Thomas Jefferson, guilty of the same crime of defamation (criminal libel) back in the 1790s.

Jefferson was a poetic writer, but as far as moral scruples, he had none, at least not if such moral scruples got in the way of his political vision. In other words, to make sure his political ideas won favor, he thought it was OK to lie, cheat, or do whatever was necessary. Now, in Jefferson's defense, he thought that anything that went contrary to his political ideas was a direct threat to the country. So he thought he was being a good countryman with all the lies and treachery. I'm really glad to have read this and to understand more about it now.

Another vignette that caught my attention was the story (pp. 193-194) of Alexander Hamilton's "grandiose" plans to make himself into an "American Napoleon," marching the New Army all the way from Virginia and into the Louisiana Territory, Mexico and Peru (that's quite a long way to march!!!), liberating people from French and Spanish domination and creating a grand American empire. Wow. Alexander Hamilton, like Thomas Jefferson, had a wonderful way with words, but he also seemed to go a little batty when all the power went to his head. Thank goodness for the checks and balances in the U.S. Government! John Adams, who was President at the time, was able to halt Hamilton's plans by resuming negotiations with France; this removed the rationale for Hamilton to mobilize his land forces against French settlements in America.

Looking back, it's amazing how easily things could have swung one way or the other ... Alexander Hamilton could have waged a military coup, or one of the Founding Fathers could have installed himself as a dictator ... many different things could have happened, and the constitutional government, established in 1789, could have very easily not survived the first 20 years. When you look back on how fragile the government was at that time, it's amazing that the government did survive. It also provides insight into why it is that stable governments are so difficult to establish in other countries around the world, today or at any time in history.

My first reading experience with Ellis was The Quartet, which quickly became one of my favorite books of all time. I was eager to start on this one, however, the intent of this book is quite different, so it took some time getting used to. I'm a bit simple, I like my history told chronologically, LOL.

Ellis states in the preface that this book is not a chronological telling of a certain time but rather his analysis on it based on vignettes of key issues, relationships, events that reveal the passion, struggle and the main point, fragility of our fledgling nation and the ideals or expectations we bound ourselves too. While the Founding Fathers were knowingly mythologizing themselves, painting the success of "the cause" as a moral certainty, Ellis aims to demythologize them, revealing their doubts, fears and fierce, sincere attempts to reconcile competing values. The battle for nationhood was easy, but the effort towards national unity continues to this day.

It takes special skill to be concise yet eloquent, and relate the past to the future, and Ellis has made it his signature writing style (this book is only 248 pgs!). I only dock a star because his intent with this book is too broad, he really could've picked any person or event to highlight, and the opening chapter, which featured Burr and Hamilton's duel, was a bit weak in its analysis, or how it related to Ellis's thesis, like he was trying to make it fit. It was dramatic, yes, but his conclusion on it being "honor above all"...eh. The strongest chapters are the two at the end, which explained the two main camps of thinking through their main champions, the titans, Adams and Jefferson.

Ellis is the perfect author for the general reader, without dumbing down, he distills the information and strengthens with his interpretation. I see many rereads of this in my future.

The Duel: Burr v Hamilton
The Capitol and the Compromise
Slavery
George Washington
The Friendship: Adams and Jefferson

Amazing book about the founding generation told thru specific episodes and the men who participated.

Jose’s Founding Fathers Power Rankings:
1. George Washington
2. John Adams
3. James Madison
4. Benjamin Franklin
5. Thomas Jefferson


45. Alexander Hamilton somewhat redeemable

Last last place: Aaron Burr. No redemption total loser and fraud

Favorite quote:

The clearest statement Washington ever made on Americas natonal interest came in his Circular Letter of 1783, she last of his anmuel letters to the stare governments as commander in chid. He projected a panoramic and fully continental vision of an American empite and he expressed his vision in language that, at least for one moment, soared beyond the usually prosaic boundanies of his subdued syle: " The Citizens of America, placed in the most enviable condition, as the sule Lords and Proprietors of a vast Tract of Continent, comprehending all the various soils and climates of the World, and abounding with all the necessaries and conveniences of life, are now by the late satisfactory pacification, acknowledged to be possessed of absolute freedom and Independency; They are, from this period, to be considered as Actors on a most conspicuous Theatre, which seems to be peculiarly designated by Providence for the display of human greatness and felicity."

n  History is a learning tool that we use to make ourselves better... n

Joseph J. Ellis in this book takes us back into the lives some of the men who pledged their lives, fortune, and honor in order to secure the independence of America. They were, George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, Aaron Burr, Alexander Hamilton and others. They were the 18th century Statesmen who were not only known for their social success, but also for their political success and they have enjoyed a halo both domestically and internationally for their efforts and work to maintain the federal states of America. However, despite their success together, they were divided in ideologies. They all had their own temperaments which reacted with each other and since they all wanted to control power in some form, there was bound to be friction among them.

Mount Vernon Street produced George Washington who became the first president of America. According to Henry Adams, n  "he was a primary, or, if Virginians liked it better, an ultimate relation, like the Pole Star, and amid the endless restless motion of every other visible point in space, he alone remained steady, in the mind of Henry Adams, to the end. All the other points shifted their bearings; John Adams, Jefferson, Madison, Franklin even John Marshall... ."n