Rating: 
Summary: Be warned.
Review: Be warned: read this book only if you ready for a real eye-opener, and a heart breaker, about the rise of corporate power in the US. This is not some southern polemic, but a well researched and powerful analysis of one of the great myths of American politics. Dilorenzo takes you to the head waters of the flow of events in our history that led to the replacement of our decentralized, American republic advancing the liberty of our people, with a centralize American empire serving corporate power. I was both convinced and deeply shocked that much of what we learn in both high school and college about the civil war is largely nonsense, spun origionally in the 1860s by the mercantile faction of the republican party to justify the creation of a centralized state to service corporate interests, and an unnecessary, awful war that was used to create the opportunity to radically alter the course of our history.
Rating:
Summary: Spooky stuff
Review: brilliant work! truly a valuable alternative to the drivel most history books try to push on americans today...exposed the dark side of some of our "infallible" leaders and gave keen insight on how corruption, greed for power, and egotism could have doomed our nation in it's early evolution...i especially appreciated the unusual format of sandwiching actual newspaper editorials with fictional (but historically accurate) commentary. it's amazing what violence and emotion the printed word can evoke...once again, brillian work...
Rating:
Summary: An eye-opening political thriller...
Review: Can historical source material make for an exciting and engaging read? This book answers that question in the extreme affirmative. It contains documents mainly from the 18th century, but it reads like a political thriller. It also provides valuable peeks into the formation of the United States as we know it today. Magma hot controversy surrounded that formation. The press on all sides fervently spewed accusations that seem nearly heretical even today. Did John Adams want to be king? Was George Washington a bumbling and incompetent general? Did the French win the revolution for us, thanks to the diplomatic powers of Benjamin Franklin? Was Thomas Jefferson an atheistical French sympathizer? In light of these claims, Who is really the "father of our country?" Many unconventional opinions see light in this book. Some cherished political figures get shredded to bits, sometimes by their own words and sometimes by the words of others. In the end, no one is safe from abuse. Not even Benjamin Franklin and George Washington. Shocking claims await on almost every page.
The drama begins in the city of Philadelphia in 1798. At this time it served as the capital for the very young United States (the government moved to Washington in 1800). John Adams holds the presidency. George Washington still has a year to live. Benjamin Franklin has been dead for eight years. His grandson, Benjamin Franklin Bache runs a newspaper called the Aurora General Advertiser (or just "The Aurora"). For reporting on certain congressmen's less than professional behavior (spitting, insults, etc), congress bars the paper from the floor of both houses. The Aurora gets shoved into the balconies of congress, far above the whispers of congressman that Bache so often reported on without approval from the House Speaker. Congress marks the Aurora as a troublemaker. This begins the first section of the book, where the Aurora accuses president Adams of wanting to be king of the United States. More than mere conjecture or metaphor spurned this accusation. Adams presented his idea of "titles" to Congress on May 9, 1789. He suggested a verbose title for the president: "His Highness, the President of the United States of America and Protector of the Rights of the Same." Along with this, he proposed that the president and all senators should hold their offices for life. These ideas deeply disturbed Bache, and the exposure of Adams' goals became a predominant goal of his paper. In addition, Bache accused the Adams administration of purposefully alienating France. The Aurora and other news sources of 1789 reported on the terrifying prospect of a French invasion of the United States. It never happened, and Bache yelled foul from his printing press. The more he yelled the more the Adams administration responded. The Sedition Act, supposedly created to silence the Aurora, came before Congress and passed in 1789. On top of that the the Alien Bill also passed, which enabled the president to deport any illegal alien without trial. Bache argued the unconstitutionality of both Acts. The inevitable arrest came soon after. Bache posted bail for trial for indictment under the Sedition Act. The yellow fever epidemic of the same year altered the proceedings. Other arrests and trials of newspaper editors continued. Many were convicted, spent time in prison, and paid heavy fines.
Part Two of the book goes back in time to before the American Revolution. This section will raise the most eyebrows. It begins with an accusation that George Washington started the French Indian War of 1756. The section goes on to argue that Washington bungled the Revolutionary war so badly that Benjamin Franklin had to go to France and beg for help. Surprising letters from Washington's Generals and other government officials dot the entire section. Other revelations include Alexander Hamilton's avowal that monarchy best suits the new constitution's checks and balances, Adams' ideas behind a two house legislature, Benjamin Franklin's support of a unicameral legislature, and the alleged flouting of the French Treaty of 1778 under the Washington administration. Washington in particular fares badly in this section.
The Third and final section returns to 1798. William Duane now heads up the Aurora (you can guess what happened). He continues the fight against the Adams administration's policies, particularly in the critical election year of 1800. The government arrests Duane under the Sedition Act, and even the United States Senate arrests Duane for "breach of privilege". Duane spends much of this section in hiding. This section also sheds some light on the origins of the Second Amendment concerning the subject of standing armies. Much, much more gets coverage in this section. Far too much to summarize here, but the election of 1800 (Adams vs. Jefferson) receives more than ample coverage.
Throughout, the reader gets more perspectives than just the Aurora's. The Federalists (Adams' party) also get plenty of space. Numerous passages from the Gazette of the United States and Porcupine's Gazette (both Federalist papers of Philadelphia) provide vitriolic responses to Bache's and Duane's Democratic-Republican claims. Candor was not something practiced by the press of the time. Articles sometimes resulted in personal assaults on editors with opposing papers cheering on the abusers. Rough times indeed.
Though the book provides many perspectives, the book mainly argues that Bache and Duane's Aurora saved the United States from monarchy (even Thomas Jefferson made this claim in 1823), and that freedom of the press provided the means. The book takes a decidedly anti-Federalist stance.
Engaging and powerful, this book will provide at least another perspective on the founding of the United States and its major personalities. It accomplishes this mostly through excerpts from newspapers, The Annals of Congress, and personal letters of the time (the book contains over 2000 direct citations). At times it feels close to time travel. A long and arduous but ultimately extremely rewarding read.
Rating:
Summary: Refuting Federalist Propaganda
Review: I found this book very enjoyable.Mr Rosenfeld using the writings of the Federalists shows their contempt of freedom and predeliction for order by surpressing dissent.Contrary to what reviewer David Randall believes about Bache and Duane's love of the French Revolution and democracy,this book rightly exposes the love of monarchy and it's forms by leading federalists;Hamiltons's proposal during the constitutional convention for an unlimited government and monarchy,Adam's love of titles and aristocracy,and Washington's deification and support of the Alien and Sedition acts,both violations of the very constitution he helped draft.The book is biased,but biased in favor of a side of history seldom told.A story of a battle for liberty of the press and constitutional government.Although Mr Randall wants to deflect attention from the tyranny of Federalist politicians,this book exposes them through they're own words and deeds.Overall a brilliant book.
Rating: 
Summary: All The News?
Review: It pains me to give American Aurora a relatively negative review, as the book was entertaining and well-prepared. I must do so, however, because the book offers only part of the story. James Thomas Callendar is one of the most amusing characters of early American history -- the forefather of folks like Walter Winchell and Matt Drudge, the first American "scandalmonger," as William Safire calls him. But he was motivated by money and personal pique, embracing and denouncing Washington, Adams, and Jefferson in turn to sell papers and whenever he felt one had slighted his ambitions. American Aurora focuses only on the period of the Alien and Sedition Acts and Callendar's campaign against Adams. The book makes Callendar out to be a John Peter Zenger-caliber hero of free expression, ignoring the fact that Callendar once praised Adams, and would later tarnish Jefferson -- Callendar's hero in American Aurora -- and breaking the story of Sally Hemings. This is a fun read. Too bad it's not the whole truth.
Rating:
Summary: Imagine that !
Review: It's hard to imagine how a twenty-fifth 5-star review can do any more to convince anyone to read this book... But I will try!I HATED history in school, and rarely read history as an adult. Nevertheless, I was engrossed by this book and could hardly put it down, notwithstanding 900+ pages! It has revived my interest in (accurate) history, and might do the same for you. If you like your history shined-up with the polyurethane glow of hero-sweat, don't go near this book; unless, that is, you would like to actually learn something and enjoy the learning along the way. In the end you might discover a hero or two, but mostly you will come away quite convinced that the "popular" history of our own nation is seemingly as intent as that of the old USSR on covering-up and inverting the facts. Imagine that! Say "Alien and Sedition Act" to most people who have not completely blocked their recall of high school US history and you will see the whites of their eyes - rolling up into a coma! This could be the single most boring and meaningless datum we were required to remember, no? But now, on reading "American Aurora", I find that the "act" was slammed through Congress as a way of shipping as many as possible of the troublesome new Irish immigrants off-shore as possible - before the election of 1800 where they were expected to cause electoral trouble for the Federalists. Imagine that ! For that matter, say "Federalist" to most folks and you can clear the room... a few desperate souls mumbling about "Marbury and Madison". But, WHEN you read this book (it cannot be an "if"), you'll realize how fundamental the rift was and how vicious the political battle was that constructed the foundations of our political structure.. So many of our history teachers wished that we would understand the "fundamental" part - but that we would somehow accept that anything so important was settled by a bunch of powdered wigs (or was it whigs?) in grand public session - that it was all neatly sewn up, somehow, after Cornwallis's band played "The World Turned Upside Down." The true story reads more like Capone's Chicago and the "settling" of the issue was a messy, decade-long business. In style the book frightened me. Really! It is peppered with original documents of the era - letters and the like. That sort of "authenticity" often seems to just introduce confufing fyntax and fpelling that drives me away. Well, consider a quote from a letter from Thomas Paine to Washington. "You slept away your time in the field till the finances of the country were completely exhausted, and you have little share in the glory of the final event. It is time, sir, to speak the undisguised language of historical truth.". Sheesh! We realize that even Paine, usually cast as a firebrand only in the `liberty or death' category, was outspoken in other ways, which have not echoed down the halls of official history. Imagine that! Ultimately the mixture of original source documents and well-crafted storytelling is a knock-your-socks-off combination. This is absolutely compelling history and a great read to boot.
Rating:
Summary: Will transform the way you think about early America
Review: This book was controversial in the historical community, in large part because of the author's decision to adopt the voice of William Duane as the book's "narrator." While Rosenfeld's interventions in Duane's voice are distracting and grating, ultimately they comprise only a tiny fraction of the book's ample content. The rest of the book offers a fascinanting exegesis into the character and climate of political and public life in the early republic. Critics who take aim at Rosenfeld's lack of objectivity (as a consequence of his adoption of Duane's voice) only end up revealing their own biases. Rosenfeld clearly has a stake in the story he wants to tell, but any scholar who invests time in a major research endeavor shares that position. Rosenfeld merely lays his cards on the table, without maintaining a pretense of objectivity. His argument is all the more compelling in that its constructed on a foundation almost exclusively built out of primary source materials. After reading this book, you will not necessarily be compelled that Washington was a murderer (to cite one minor example), but you will no longer be able to imagine that the eighteenth- and early nineteenth-centuries were eras of enlightened, rational thinking. This book is an engaging, illuminating read and the treasure trove of primary materials provided by the author offers readers the opportunity to draw their own conclusions about specific incidents and debates. At the same time, it leaves little room to hold onto myths about the nature of political and print culture in the so-called Age of Enlightenment.
Rating:
Summary: What would our countries' forefathers think of us now?
Review: This is an amazing book. Pure and simple. The book is a compilation of letters, newspaper articles, and journal excerpts from historical figures in, and witnesses of, the dramatic early days of the United States. The author also uses some dramatic license to flesh out events that are mentioned in the articles and letters. The book focuses on the leading newspaper of the United States from the founding of the U.S.A. to Thomas Jefferson's inaugration as president. The tales told are things that are usually only mentioned in passing in typical history books, this is the political infighting, scandals and events that shaped our country in the early days. Current politicians, commentators and anyone who thinks politics right now are bad has to read this book. It is amazing to read this novel and see what the founders and early leaders of the U.S. did and compare it to current political fighting and scandals. Once you realize this it makes you wonder how amused these earlier figures would be at what we now consider scandalous behavior by politicians. There was duels, embezzlement, private use of public funds (in huge amounts,) actual physical fighting, suspension of the bill of rights and other things that politicians did in the nascent beginning of the U.S. that make all of the current political battles, scandals, and criticism pale by comparison. A must read for any lover of history, politics, or just U.S. citizens.
Rating:
Summary: Put some story back into your history
Review: This wonderfully long, action packed, history of America's birth doesn't pull any punches. You can actually tell that human beings made up our history. By quoting from tons of letters and newspaper articles from the day, you get a glimpse of the passion with which the Right Wing and Left Wing political forces pursued their goals at America's birth. Be prepared to notice a remarkable resemblance to today's state of affairs.
Rating:
Summary: And You Thought The Founding Fathers Were Saints?
Review: Tom Paine writes to George Washington of his generalship in the American Revolution: "You slept away your time in the field till the finances of the country were completely exhausted, and you have little share in the glory of the final event. It is time, sir, to speak the undisguised language of historical truth."
George Washington not the father of his country?
George Washington starting the French and Indian War by having an emmisary under a white flag shot?
Alexander Hamilton engaging in illegal speculation and denying it by claiming he commited adultery instead and was settling scores with money?
Washington's famous farewell address warning to avoid "foreign entanglements" a ruse to silence those who disagreed with his treaty with England?
All this from the first 35 pages of this thousand page book.
Forget the Monica scandal - this is the real thing. Get into the time machine and prepare to experience history as the contemporaries did. First class!
|
