The author, Edmund Morgan, obviously knows his history. And is as expert an historian I've read when it comes to knowing previous historical works and what they covered. So in that sense, this book is more for historians than the layman. It also repeatedly professes his admiration of one of Morgan's former professors and comrades, Perry Miller, who I am not familiar with. Some good information and essays abound, but most of it is above my area of knowledge.

These are ostensibly book reviews that evaluate academics arguments about pre-revolutionary America. Morgan’s is of course a famous scholar himself and unlike most historical scholarship these essays are engaging, thought provoking and nuanced, and extremely well written. Morgan evaluates and contextualices the authors he critiques in a way that is always searching for implications and evaluating others’ analytical approach.

What the reader gets is a page turning and intellectual look at the community and institutional structure of pre-revolutionary society. This is valuable because it shows the foundational concerns of the Revolutionary generation and by implication how they approached constructing a government. As someone who is deeply engaged in constitutional interpretation and scholarship, this book is also practically useful.

Morgan’s essays are usually high level and introduce ideas about the social norms, neurosis, and lives realities of the Colonial era. For example, the nature of colonial governors meant they had more control in the 18th century nominally than in reality as a distant and somewhat devolved representative of an English King. On the other hand, we get detailed accounts of Cotton Mother’s spiritual quirks and defiance of norms to inoculate his family from smallpox.

The section on NE and the Puritan communities and their approach to social cohesion in a very dogmatic way was may favorite part. I especially enjoyed the approach to punishment—that a person who confesses is absolved of any crime because of such a firm belief in inherent sin. Morgan takes these theological inconsistencies to a literal degree as the Puritans did to show a unique theological, political, and criminal justice perspective. In these opening essays we also get great examples of how witchcraft was a perceived reality of life and use to enforce social norms, how the Puritan testimony was arguably a coping skill or how sex before marriage worked (lots of that apparently).

The essays on the South are not as inspired, although the idea of a negotiated relationship between slaves and whites is explored with nuance and it is stunning to learn about the death rate. Puritan life expectancy significantly increased so grandparents became uniquely involved in life while for first white southerners the life expectancy was 45 years or so and the mortality rate about 50%—or in other words the death rate of the first wave on d-day. The information asymmetry from what we know about present day migration (migration should be more common except for social cohesion and risk aversion) would be interesting research and probably exists since these essays were written.

One argument this is worked pushed back on is that American government had a unique view of the separation of church and state because it the first colonists were religious refugees. Morgan swipes this idea away by showing communities were still so concerned about other dogma’s that they didn’t want theocratic rule on a large level either.

Morgan has a theme of showing how these experiences and cultural quirks weaves together a meaningful set of checks and balances that may let the United States continue its gradual goal of being better—but that this only works if there is a consent based society with agency to be a Democratic or institutional check.

In the end, this is an exceptional set of short essays that surveys several generations of proto-Americans that is often witty and extremely incisive (and a bit too clinical and insensitive on how some subjects are introduced). Morgan occasionally uses the authors who are the nominal subjects of his reviews as strawmen to talk about his own theories but most often the works critiqued are deeply explored in a way that would be hard not to like and lead most readers to a more informed and nuanced view on colonial history and how it informs the current US government.

The Genuine Article is a collection of essay reviews that Edmund S. Morgan published in the New York Review of Books beginning in the 1970s into the early years of the 21st century. Morgan was already regarded as one of the leading historians of the American colonial period and Revolutionary War at the time he wrote the first of these essays, which of course his why the editors of the Review selected him. His work since has only enhanced that reputation. He groups the essays topically rather than chronologically into four categories: "New Englanders," "Southerners," "Revolutionaries," and the shortest "Questions of Culture." In the process he comments on some of the most important books in colonial and revolutionary war history published during this period and reveals Catholic interests, probing intellect, and a very appealing modesty. He can raise hard questions about books in very measured and gentle prose. Taken collectively, these essays are hardly an overview of the field---at the very least they exclude all mention of his own work---but they offer searching examination of some very important books. My favorite essays include "The First Great American" [John Winthrop], "The Big American Crime" [on slavery], "A Loyal Un-American" [Thomas Hutchinson], "Secrets of Benjamin Franklin," "The Great Political Fiction," [on the House of Commons debate on the Petition of Right, the Continental Congress, the ratification of the U.S. Constitution, and the first federal elections], "The Second American Revolution" [on Gordon Wood's The Radicalism of the American Revolution], and "Who's Really Who." The last, a review of the 24 volumes of the American National Biography contrasted with its 20 volume predecessor, the Dictionary of American Biography written with the assistance of Morgan's wife Marie, is a masterpiece of thoughtful concision and a genuine tour de' force. I highly recommend this book.

This book collects reviews published in the New York Review over twenty or thirty years. Morgan is an excellent book reviewer. He places the book in a larger background--both the historical period covered and the academic trends that affect it. He finds something new or interesting or novel in every book, even those he doesn't ultimately like much.

Ultimately a charming compendium of reviews written by Morgan, one of the most important early American historians of the 20th century. Morgan has always had a knack for distilling complex ideas in rather straightforward language and the same holds true in his reviews for the New York Review of Books.

a perfect model of condensing american history books into 5 page reviews/essays. edmund morgan can write like a mf and synthesize and critique what he reads with what he knows/believes into funny, informative and easy-to-understand short essays about early america, comparing and contrasting new england, new dutch, and southern colonies in all kinds of ways, from religion to sex. a must have reference for any serious history readers. i cannot quite figure out if these were all nyrb book reviews or just reviews he has written over the years, but he deserves a gold star for being such a kick ass thinker.

Although it is strange to read historians reviewing other history books or essays, I found it interesting how the author would critique others' works. It certainly made me realize that history is somewhat subjective and makes me wonder how much historical knowledge that we hold as truth is based upon the "coloring" of the particular author.

The book is a collection of his reviews in The New York Review of Books, which is one of its strong points. The essays are fairly short, generally around ten pages, and are focused on one or more works by other historians. He summarizes the book or books and then gives his own assessment. Morgan is a deep thinker and a clear writer. I found myself thinking very differently about the early history of America by the time I was done. Who know that Benjamin Franklin, who preached about hard work and thrift, retired at 42 and lived on his savings the remaining 40 years of his life?

The chapters on Ben Franklin and George Washington were the best.

Its pretty hard to go wrong with a book that compiles NYRB articles on pre-revolutionary America. That said, I find that some of Morgan's reviews provide less background information and/or analysis of the subject matter than the strongest of NYRB efforts.

Ended up being a great book. I sort of skipped around and read the chapters that sounded most interesting as it was a collection of essays. Morgan is sort of the authority on the American Revolution, so it was interesting to hear his take. A good refresher on Early America, specifically John Winthrop, Salem Witch Trials, Puritans, Ben Franklin, Madison & Jefferson, and Washington.

This book is a collection of book reviews from The New York Review of Books (which is unusually generous in allowing long reviews) by one of the preeminent historians of early America from the last third of the 20th century, someone I admire and whose work heavily influenced my own doctoral dissertation. But much of it feels a little quaint in the 21st century. And Morgan, here, is something of a Johnny One-Note. Bear with me as I tell what at first will appear to be an unrelated anecdote. While in grad school at the University of Chicago, I seized an opportunity to take a class co-taught by the eminent religion scholar Mircea Eliade, a readings class covering the classic works in the history of religions (also known as comparative religion). His assessment of nearly every book was, essentially, “It’s good as far as it goes, but it just doesn’t take myth seriously enough.” (I had a similarly disappointing experience in a class taught by John Hope Franklin.) Morgan does something very similar here. He is, at times, gracious in acknowledging the contributions of social history, but he cannot pass up the opportunity to note how much more fruitful it is to rely on documents that tell us explicitly what people in the era under consideration were thinking. In the first section, nearly every review includes a defense of his mentor, Perry Miller. In later sections, even when reviewing books of social history, and even when he appreciates their contribution, he complains that they fail to take the articulated ideas of the time and place seriously enough. Now I believe in the importance of ideas for shaping history--my own dissertation, after all, focused mostly on the ideas of elites of the revolutionary era--but I don’t think every author needs to do that in every book; we can all learn from each others’ differing interests and methods. He’s also a champion of taking people at their word unless compelling evidence indicates that we shouldn’t. In this regard, the essay on Benjamin Franklin, the longest in the book at 22 pages, is brilliant. I also especially appreciated the penultimate review of a Library of America collection of American sermons from the Pilgrims to Martin Luther King Jr.