Founding Brothers

Rating:
Summary: okay, hard to read
Review: Ellis is a very scholarly gentleman but his scholarly side came out in this book as it was very difficult to read. I found it very interesting him talking about things in history I had never thought about but he assumed we knew all about this pivotal points in American History and I did not.

We read this for a book club and there is also a video that goes with it the Founding Brothers that the History channel did.

Rating:
Summary: A CHAPTER OF ENTERTAINING HISTORY
Review: This beautifully structured book is a chapter of entertaining history. Every player participated; and in his position too! The theme of this book is correct: both the Revolution and the Declaration of Independence succeeded due to collective contributions. Their efforts were indeed spirited.
The "Founding Brothers: The Revolutionary Generation" is a compendium of all the important events in the shaping of the U.S.A. I enjoyed reading the book, regardless of my disappointment that such a group of liberty-questing minds did turn around, and nurtured a slave-holding empire.

Rating:
Summary: Going Against the Grain
Review: Despite all the glowing remarks here, I find Ellis to be a tedious author and there's nothing that bothers me more than a writer who kills a good story.

This strikes me as a vehicle designed to showcase the author's ease with highly constructed language and put forth his own research as the screen through which we are to view these men. Rather like trying to see a fantastic painting through an elaborate screen. All you want to do is push it out of the way so you can get a good look at it.

Rating:
Summary: The Consequences of Ideas
Review: A discussion of the early years of our Republic (not democracy!) centered around the interactions of several key founders during crucial times. The author shows that in the years immediately after the ratification of the Constitution, it was not clear that a Republic spread over such a vast territory could survive, and so a look at the issues is presented, personalities and compromises to increase the odds of survival. Through his portrayal of the Founders, he shows that ideas certainly have consequences.

Rating:
Summary: A passport to the founding of this nation
Review: I loved this book...Plain and simple. I have a great love for the Colonial/Revolutionary period in American history. I studied it in college and have read countless books, both on a scholarly and not so scholarly level about the subject, and this book is one of the best. Well written and insightful; it not only informs the reader, it engages them, bringing them into the world of Jefferson, Adams, Hamilton and Burr (to name a few). If you are interested in the founding of this nation and the men behind it, you can't go wrong reading Founding Brothers.

Rating:
Summary: Worst book ever
Review: This guy's writing style is horrible. He delibrately uses large words in order to make himself sound smart. I hate that. This man has made this part of history even more boring than it already is.

Rating:
Summary: I didn't know how much I didn't know
Review: I learned an amazing amount about our culture and government from reading this book. So many aspects of our current two-party system became much clearer to me. We are, and I discovered always have been, a nation divided over the proper role of government. The Democrat/Republican/Libertarian feud is a continuation of that original question. And our two-party system is a way around the inherent unanswerability of the question.

As Ellis clearly lays out, the miracle of the American post-revolutionary period (and of the specific men who steered us through that period) was not that we won the war but that we kept from spiraling into the bloodbaths and cycles of retribution that have plagued so many revolutions since.

The writing is engaging and quick. The organization into 6 stories worked very well. Ellis does not pretend to write a comprehensive history, but attempts to capture the emotion and conflict of the time. I felt like I finally knew the people in all those paintings. I could relate to them as real men with real motivations (both petty and momentous).

I loved this book, but pure historians might not for many reasons. (See the other reviews. The only factual error I found was when he presented as "correct beyond any reasonable doubt by DNA studies done in 1998" that Thomas Jefferson fathered a child with Sally Hemings (page 202 paperback). In fact, substantial doubt remains. The DNA evidence only proves that someone in Jefferson's family fathered the child.) For an average reader with an average understanding of US history and culture, it is a very enlightening read.

Rating:
Summary: Questions about Burr.
Review: This book is well-written and thought-provoking. I had some questions, however, about the author's treatment of Aaron Burr. For example, on page 43 of the paperback edition, Ellis says, "Burr allowed the voting between him and Jefferson to go on for thirty-six ballots in the House of Representatives without ever indicating his principled recognition that the mass of the electorate had clearly intended to designate Jefferson as president." In Isaac Jenkinson's 1902 book on Burr, he quotes Burr's letter to General Samuel Smith, dated December 16, 1800. This letter communicated Burr's wishes to the House, since he was in Albany at the time. "It is highly improbable that I shall have an equal number of votes with Mr. Jefferson; but if such should be the result, every man who knows me ought to know that I would utterly disclaim all competiton. Be assured that the Federal Party can entertain no wish for such an exchange. As to my friends, they would dishonor my views and insult my feelings by a suspicion that I would submit to be instrumental in counteracting the wishes and expectations of the people of the United States. And I now consitute you my proxy to declare these sentiments if the occasion should require." As a result of this letter, not one of Burr's personal or party friends in the House voted for him through all 36 ballots. Ellis implies that Burr should have stepped down and removed himself from the process. Wouldn't that have given the vice-presidency to Adams? And why should Burr remove himself? Wasn't it the intention of the Consitutional Convention that the House would decide (based on its own criteria) when there was a tie in the electoral college? Jefferson didn't step aside in 1796 when Adam's running mate came in third in the electoral vote--even though the electorate's intention was clear. John Quincy Adams didn't step aside when he received ten fewer electoral votes than Andrew Jackson. Burr stated his wishes clearly and then let the process do what it was intended to do. He steadfastly refused to subvert the process by accepting a Federalist deal--which is more than can be said for Jefferson. Of course Jefferson was not happy with Burr, but that shouldn't color the historian's judgement.
On page 44, Ellis says, "...when Federalist leaders from New York approached him (Burr) as a prospective candidate for the gubernatorial race, he indicated a willingness to switch party affiliations and run in his home state as a Federalist." Other books I have read, including Jenkinson's, indicate that Burr ran as a Republican but that many Federalists decided to support him. In an age when political parties weren't even supposed to exist, why was it unprincipled for Burr to accept support from members of another party? Again, it is easy to see why radicals like Jefferson and Hamilton would be alarmed by a Republican who attracted Federalist support, but why should we be told by an historian that Burr's behavior was questionable? And if some of these supporters were secessionists, what of it? There's no evidence he felt that way or agreed in any way to pursue that option. Yet Ellis implies that Burr should have repudiated them. What politician has ever repudiated a supporter in an election because the supporter's views were extreme? What's more, Ellis' book suggests that politicians were threatening secession all the time in those days. Didn't Jefferson himself threaten secession over the Alien and Sedition Acts?
Burr has taken a lot of abuse over the years, mostly because of the political smear campaign run by Jefferson and Hamilton in their attempt to gain and hold power. Isn't it about time modern historians took a more objective look at Burr?

Rating:
Summary: History at it's best!
Review: This is no ordinary history book. It's a great book about the "Founding Brothers." This book will take you in the room where the discussions were held. It makes you feel as if you are there in the midst of history happening. You get to know these individuals as people, not just icons of history. I started reading it and couldn't put it down. Takes you back to the moment. A terrific book. Joseph Ellis brings history to life once again.

Rating:
Summary: A Look at the Relationships Between our Founding Fathers
Review: I believe that Joseph Ellis did an excellent job with this book. He takes a look at some of the relationships between the men who were major contributors to our independence. Ellis does not shy away from some controversial events such as Thomas Jefferson paying a editor to slander President Washington. Such instances as these are avoided by many authors and it is refreshing to view a realistic representation of these icons. The book is a very enjoyable read and I would definitely recommend it to anyone interested in our founding fathers.