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
FROM
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0375705244/ref=pd_sim_books_3/103-2932406-1249463?v=glance&s=books
Founding Brothers: The Revolutionary Generation
by Joseph J. Ellis
