Rating: 
Summary: A hash job
Review: Ellis makes it clear from the start where his sympathies lie with the Revolutionary generation and he ambushes us with Abigail Adams for good measure. Of the six stories, only The Silence is revealing for Ellis' feeble attempt to portray the slavery debate as a South-against-South issue. He lavishes attention on a hillbilly from Georgia simply to whitewash a Virginian like Jefferson, who in fact held the same, if not worse, attitudes about his slaves (all conveniently ignored by Ellis). Hamilton was the closest as any of these founding brothers came to believing that blacks and whites were equal and his financial system doomed slavery in a way Adams and his fine rhetoric could never hope to, but he barely rates a mention.
Rating:
Summary: READ THIS!..THE TRUTH ABOUT FOUNDING BROS.
Review: Everyone please read this and I mean it, this is the truth about Founding Brothers. This book is absolutely dreadful. Unless you are a huge history buff, and I mean huge, this book is a waste of time, money, and energy. Ellis does a horrible job saying what he has to say. It takes him about 50 pages to make a point that can be done in 5. Don't read this book. I like history, especially the American Revolution, but this book has no way increased my interest, if anything decrease, or taught me something. There's only one word that can describe this book: BAD.
Rating: 
Summary: The true "spirit of '76"
Review: FOUNDING BROTHERS by Joseph Ellis is one of the best expositions on the remarkable revolutionary fraternity that set the course for the nation; the book principally looks at the interpersonal relationships between George Washington, John Adams, James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, Alexander Hamilton and Aaron Burr, set against the backdrop of six episodes that the author says characterized the political-crisis filled, nation-building decade of the 1790's. The book then is less a history of the revolution than a collection of chapter stories and biographical glimpses that illustrates the character and the views of the revolution's most significant political leaders. There are two themes which run throughout the book. Mr Ellis mentions them early and often; they are therefore important to a proper understanding of the behavior and motives of the the founding fathers in this crucial period of national consolidation and soul searching. (1) "No one present at the start knew how it would turn out in the end." This was fundamentally true for all; it was not just a case of a few doubting Thomases. George Washington was unsure that we up for the task; Washington in his last General Order, the author says, expressed his concerns about what would happen if the principles of federal government were not supported: "the honor, dignity and justice of the nation would be lost forever." Mr Ellis says plainly "what in retrospect has the look of a foreordained unfolding of God's will was in reality an improvisational affair in which sheer chance, pure luck - both good and bad...determined the outcome." (2) Politically the period was marked by "shrill accusatory rhetoric, flamboyant displays of ideological intransigence, intense personal rivalries and hyperbolic claims of imminent catastophe." This reality is invariably overlooked when we grow wistful and nostalgic. We should remember that in the political culture of the day there was no formal recognition of the role of an opposition. As such there can be no doubt that the debates were vitriolic; Indeed, Mr Ellis says: "neither side possessed the verbal or mental capacity to regard the other as anything but treasonable." Statesmen and gentlemen they undoubtably were, but as this book reminds us, they were also political animals - sometimes savagely so. It is against this backdrop that we can look at the first episode - "THE DUEL" - which illustrates the nature of the relationship between these men. This chapter refers to all the historical versions of the 1804 duel between Burr and Hamilton; the latter man we know lost his life. It explores all that led up to the duel and the fallout from it. Burr is shown to be a reckless opportunist whose influence swiftly waned following Hamilton's death. The author says that despite the differences between the men and their political passions "the energies released by national independence did not devour its own children"; the duel represents the only case in "the revolutionary generation when political difference ended in violence and death rather than in ongoing argument." The famous DINNER between Jefferson, Madison, and Hamilton in 1790, is the subject of the second chapter. Here the book develops on the men's opposing economic and political visions for the new republic. On one side were the Federalists (Washington, Hamilton and Adams) who advocated "the virtuous surrender of personal, state and sectional interests to the larger purposes of American nationhood." They saw the nation's economic future tied to commerce and manufacturing; Hamilton's fiscal plan favored bankers, merchants and the urban elite - it would create a national debt and a national bank and conjured up for the opposing Republican's (Jefferson and Madison), an image of the all powerful national government that they had just fought to overthrow. Jeffersonians favored an agrarian economy and saw the true spirit of '76 as a "liberation movement." Mr Ellis states that the outcome of the dinner was the Compromise of 1790 whereby Hamilton's fiscal policies were agreed on in exchange for assurances for Southerners that the nation's capital would be built on the Potomac River. Another chapter episode is "THE SILENCE" where Mr Ellis sees further compromise. The chapter begins with the arrival of petitions to Congress calling for the abolition of slavery; one such petition was signed by the newly appointed president of the Pennsylvania Abolition Society - Benjamin Franklin. The 1790 Congressional debates on the subject were very opinionated; Washington favored Abolition, because Mr Ellis says: "he tended to regard the condition of the black population as a product of nurture rather than nature - that is, he saw slavery as the culprit." Even slave owners such as Jefferson and Madison called the pro-slavery speeches invoking the defenses of biblical authority and racial superiority, by their proper name - "a moral embarrassment". They however went no further. Mr Ellis says that in the face of secessionist threats from South Carolina and Georgia, the founding fathers believed the question of Abolition had "the political potential to destroy the union." Thus the silence. Perhaps Mr Ellis is correct but it reads more like a clear sign (and to be fair, the only time) that the founders had a collective failure of statesmanship. They missed an opportunity to debate the issue; an opportunity that would never come that generation's way again. The last chapter "THE FRIENDSHIP" explores the relationship between Adams and Jefferson. Mr Ellis is clearly an admirer of John Adams and he paints a glowing portrait of the man. "His refreshing and often irreverent candor provides the clearest window into the deeper ambitions and clashing vanities that propelled them all." Adams had been deserted by the others when he assumed the presidency; he relied on his wife Abigail who effectively served as his one person staff. The author treated with that episode in "THE COLLABORATORS". Reconciliation between Jefferson and Adams eventually took place and their friendship resumed in 1812; what then followed was a 14 year exchange of letters - 158 in total. This is a well written and insightful book, neatly and succintly bringing to the fore historical and biographical details we have all learned before, but have never read about in so entertaining and refreshing a manner. "The reading of all good books is like conversation with the finest men of past centuries." (Rene Descartes)
Rating: 
Summary: Good book-Too much information
Review: Founding Brothers is an excellent book by Joseph J. Ellis. He describes, in his opinion, the six most important events of the revolutionary era. He calls them the Duel, Dinner, Silence, Farewell, Collaborators, and Friendship. Though how historically accurate Ellis is, the book gets really boring at times. If you are a history buff, you will love it. Me, I enjoy reading about history, but this book was a little too much. It took me what seemed like forever to finish this book, and I skipped a lot. First, let me tell you that you will need a dictionary when reading this book. Second, Ellis has a style in which he keeps on going and going on one topic. This is the part that historians and history buffs love, but the average person gets bored out of his mind. The chapter I enjoyed the most were the Duel, Silence, and Farewell. The rest were alright, but Ellis does not know when to quit. Overall, pick it up from a library and voice your own opinion.
Rating: 
Summary: This book rambles on about simple stuff
Review: Joseph Ellis is one of the worst writers in history I think. The simple concepts he writes about can be easily explained in about 5 pages, but no, he will write 50+ pages on nothing!! Do I really care what Hamilton was wearing when he woke up on the morning of the duel? No. Do I care how many people rowed his boat? Again NO!! He may have some good facts but they are all so irrelevant to anything that it becomes boring and tedious to read. The only reason I read this was for my honors history class. My advice is to read the first couple of pages and the last couple of each chapter, that sums up everything. Everything in between is filler, total and utter [...].
Rating: 
Summary: Joseph Ellis and the Founding Fathers
Review: Joseph Ellis set out to compose ground-breaking book about the Founding Fathers and their interactions. While the idea for the book is good, the approach Ellis took to flawed. In the historical sense, the book is very strong. The problems is Ellis's writing begin with his addition of personal insights into history. Applying his beliefs and psychology in this scenario just did not seem appropriate. The portions of the book I found most entertaining were the chapters on the duel between Aaron Burr and Alexander Hamilton and the chapters on the relationship between Thomas Jefferson and John Adams. While the chapter on Adams and Jefferson are largely objective, they seem to be skewed against John Adams at times. The other chapters seem to explore the faults of the founder's personality more than their historical significance. It seems rather arrogant for Ellis to make some of his insinuations. The opinion of Jefferson in this book seems low despite the fact that Ellis has devoted an entire book to him. Additionally, while at first seeming critical of George Washington, the author changes direction. Aside from Ben Franklin, I believe Washington is the most worshiped figure in this book. The uneveness of the discussions and the author's seemingly baseless insights are the downfall of the book. The chapter of the Burr/Hamilton may have been the strongest point of the book. Ellis goes into the greatest depth I have ever read on the topic. His explanations of the potential scenarios which led to Hamilton's death are well thought out. In this and other chapters, Ellis lays out the evidence as to why Alexander Hamilton was so unpopular with his contemporaries. His scathing prose, made me question how Hamilton could be on the twenty dollar bill. The flaws in Burr's character and his iminent demise seem strong and well documented. While I have read better accounts of the relationship between Adams and Jefferson, I am always interested in their interactions and complex friendship which inadvertently caused the development of a two party system and partisanism. The accounts of their interactions is fairly strong. I respect the fact that Ellis used portion of their letters to each other as support for his arguments. I believe much of the praise for this book is exaggerated. While I feel it has some strong points and well written sections, it does have some fundamental flaws which seem rather glaring. In spite of the flaws, I felt it was a worth while read.
Rating:
Summary: A Portrait of American Greats--who were Human as Well
Review: Mr. Ellis has penned an astoundingly good book. Though in the news of late for apparently misleading his college classes on certain aspects of his life, this should by no means be seen as a reason not to read this book. The affair seems, in fact, something more like the millionaire who is caught shoplifting. Mr. Ellis' genius at portraying the lives of the founding fathers during the decade of 1790 makes one wonder why he would ever feel the need for fiction in his own life. Founding Brothers gives us an inside look that simultaneously shows just how great these people really were, and how human (with plentiful faults) as well. I have long thought George Washington's reputation was overblown. He wasn't particularly smart, in some senses, compared to such men as Thomas Jefferson and John Adams. As General, he managed to lose just about every battle he ever led. Winning the Revolutionary War always seemed to me to be a product of American dumb luck and British stupidity. Where, I wondered, was the greatness? Mr. Ellis shows where it was. Washington knew what needed to be done to preserve the greatness of the revolutionary ideas his compatriots were putting forth. Holding the Continental Army together was all Washington needed to do to keep the British from winning the war. And subsequently, steering a course of neutrality at practically any cost, and ensuring the preeminence of the federal government, was what was needed to preserve the ideals of the Constitution and see to it that America survived its birthing pains. Jefferson, meanwhile, has been a founding father I have thought highly of. I still think highly of his ideas, but after reading Founding Brothers, you realize that Jefferson was really not a particularly admirable person. This is not to suggest that Mr. Ellis castigates Jefferson. Indeed, not only Jefferson's ideas, but also Jefferson's duplicity and lying were necessary ingredients for the successful outcome of the Revolution and the founding of a new nation. His faults are shown, but so is the brilliance of his ideas and visions that helped this country maintain and cherish freedom. In Founding Brothers, I learned that Washington was great, as well as human. I learned that Jefferson was human, as well as great. What you will learn will no doubt depend on your own notions about this time and these people. Many of the other founding fathers are also featured in the book, so perhaps you will learn more about your favorite. Whatever the case, I think you will find the book enjoyable. It is very readable, with an entertaining style of writing that immerses you in the lives of these men during the 1790s.
Rating:
Summary: Tedious Overanalysis
Review: The events portrayed in this book were undoubtedly of tantamount importance to the formation of our government by the founders, but
I doubt the founders themselves could have slogged through this tedious, overanalytic account of their actions. The author's ability to stretch the story beyond all human endurance to read it and stay interested is phenomenal. I hung on through chapter two, the end of at which point I realized that there are much better history books out there that are worth spending your time on. Read Mccullough's John Adams instead, it's well worth the effort.
Rating:
Summary: Over-written, in my view.
Review: The propitious events about which Professor Ellis offers his finely honed observations were without the slightest doubt of seminal importance to the tenuous survival of our fledgling nation as it struggled toward its grand destiny, and his meticulously detailed analyses and provocative speculations will appeal to all hearty readers who, like Professor Ellis, have never met a noun that would fail to benefit from a well-chosen - or even not so well-chosen - adjective. His meticulously detailed analyses and provocative speculations will also appeal to all readers who, like Professor Ellis, are aware of the meaning of the word "succinct" yet find this demanding word, or better, the very concept, completely inapplicable to the crucial task of delving into the underlying, if not wholly concealed, motives of the towering, near-mythic figures of our revolutionary era who had their own competing visions of what they hoped would be the enduring history of their unprecedented experiment with a republican form of government. Incidentally, if you purchase the book in an audio format, please exercise care when listening to it while driving. I found it to induce drowsiness after about 10 minutes.
Rating:
Summary: Very insightful look at post-Revolutionary period
Review: The Revolutionary War certainly united most of the colonists against the oppressive measures visited upon them by the mother country. But beginning with the Constitutional period fissures appeared in that unity. Without the demands of war narrowing the focus, it became evident that the meaning of the revolution differed among the colonists. The main political groupings were the Federalists and the anti-Federalists, later to be known as the Republicans. Many of the mythic figures from the founding era, or in the words of the author: the "founding brothers," were leaders of those two factions that determined the direction that the new nation took in the 1790s and into the 19th century.
Not only does "Founding Brothers" examine key ideas and issues of the early republic, but it also looks at the personality and character of the key political actors of the time, those being John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, Alexander Hamilton, and James Madison. The author uses several incidents: the Hamilton-Burr duel in 1804, a Hamilton-Madison dinner arranged by Jefferson in 1790, the introduction of abolitionist petitions into Congress, also in 1790, Washington's Farewell Address of 1796, the presidential election of 1796, and the fourteen year correspondence of Jefferson and Adams at the end of their lives as stepping off points to examine the issues of the day, especially in terms of their support or deviation from republican principles. Such issues as the centralization of power, the role of the "many" versus elites, business and urban interests versus those of farmers, foreign relations with England and France, the presence and influence of political parties, and freedom to criticize the government were vigorously debated. The author also describes the convenient shelving of the slavery issue because of its volatility.
The book is hardly exhaustive in its examination of various issues and personalities, although the insight provided is not to be minimized. The author is not bent on casting any of the principals in an especially bad light, but the warts are there: the aloofness of Washington, the abrasiveness of Adams, the aggressiveness of Hamilton, and the deceptions and fantasies of Jefferson. But clearly the author finds their contributions to the early years of the republic as outweighing any flaws.
Frankly, it is rather puzzling to see the book being denigrated by some reviewers. It was not intended to be an exhaustive tome of a period, episode, or individual. If anything the book will undoubtedly stimulate some to indulge in further reading, although it stands on its own as a source of information. The reconstruction of the Hamilton-Burr duel and various interactions of Adams and Jefferson are the highlights of the book.
|
