Take a photo of a barcode or cover
74 reviews for:
The Last Founding Father: James Monroe and a Nation's Call to Greatness
Harlow Giles Unger
3.52 AVERAGE
74 reviews for:
The Last Founding Father: James Monroe and a Nation's Call to Greatness
Harlow Giles Unger
3.52 AVERAGE
informative
relaxing
fast-paced
It is unfortunate that Mr Unger does not understand that great men can still be great with some faults. Not to take anything away from Mr Monroe, but when Unger looked to discredit John Quincy Adams just to prove that Monroe was smart enough to write the Monroe doctrine, I lost some respect for the writing of this book. If we really want to compare personal libraries and education of the two men the Monroe loses...hands down.
A good biography. I was most interested in the stories of his family, his marriage and the sad and sorry way the Congress treated him.
As I’ve said in preface to reviews of other bios, I accept a level of bias in these things – because you can’t expect someone who has dedicated several years of their life to studying someone to remain objective. But you know you're in for an exceptionally wild ride when, in the introduction, the author refers to Adams, Jefferson and Madison as mere "caretakers" and implies that Monroe was the obvious heir to Washington’s legacy.
But hey, everyone gets to have an opinion, and Unger should be no different. So does he make his case? And if not, does he at least justify the book’s title? Is Monroe really the last of the founding fathers?
Well, no. And no.
In spite of the bias, a slim portrait of Monroe still emerges. The fifth president comes across as thin-skinned, shallow, not a little vain, and fairly self-involved. A man who lived off the largesse of his uncle, constantly grasping for legitimacy and aristocracy, unable (or unwilling) to build a law practice or a plantation, marrying wealth and using friends and connections to succeed.
But that, for all I can tell, is just how Monroe was, and was not what I found annoying about the biography. Instead, there are three areas that I found particularly frustrating, and which I think are indicative of the faults of the bio as a whole.
The first concerns the Louisiana Purchase. Clearly in spite of the fact that everyone alive at the time of the Louisiana Purchase wants to take credit for it, it’s pretty clear that the purchase only happened because Napoleon was eager to sell. The Americans did not put the idea into his head and did not convince him he needed to get rid of it. On this, I think, most historians are agreed.
That said, then the only real responsibility that Monroe had – and the only way he can really claim the purchase as his accomplishment - was to draft a comprehensive, accurate and thorough treaty to close the deal. And this he failed to do. For years afterwards, America was embroiled in disputes with various European powers (most notably Spain) about just exactly what was included in the Louisiana Purchase. Was Florida? Was the panhandle? What about the Northern border? What about the Southern? No one knew, thereby creating international chaos for a generation.
The second area has to do with credit. On the one hand, Unger is quick to dismiss as foolish those writers who credit Quincy Adams with the substance of the Monroe Doctrine, intimating that those writers really don’t understand that the driving personalities of presidents would preclude letting anyone else speak for them. Fair enough.
But on several occasions Unger states that he believes Madison was so incapacitated during and after the War of 1812, that he had given complete control of the government to Monroe. That Madison was really only president in name only, and that Monroe was really running the show. Really? The Madison biographers don’t see it quite that way…
And later, closer to home, after Monroe’s own final midterm elections, Unger paints a portrait of a president completely on the sidelines. Completely outflanked by his own cabinet ministers, all of whom were, it seems, running for president themselves. Again, really? Poor Monroe! If only he had power to fire his cabinet ministers and appoint people who would do what he said. Oh yeah, he did have that power.
But it seems like the sidelines is where Monroe lives most of the time in this biography. Long passages discuss events that Monroe has no direct involvement in. There’s a lot about Washington, which feels pulled from Unger’s bio of him, and from Lafayette’s life, which feels pulled from Unger’s work on him. These sections not only feel like padding, but they actually serve to make Monroe a less important and less compelling figure in his own biography.
The third area has to do with Monroe’s republican politics. Here is a man who inherits the mantle of Jefferson and Madison, who proclaims himself a republican – a member of the party that mocked John Adams and seriously believed that Adams had monarchical intentions because of his opinions on titles and ceremony – bringing a level of pomp and circumstance to the White House that would have made the Sun King blush. And Unger doesn’t bat an eye – transcribing long passages describing the sumptuousness and delicacy of the gowns of Monroe’s wife and daughters. Don’t get me wrong – I’m frustrated by Jefferson’s and Madison’s policies, and actually believe that Monroe’s pursuit of a national bank, of a standing army, of, in short, a stronger federal government, was a good thing. But those beliefs put his so far out of the mainstream of Jeffersonian-Madisonian Republicanism that they cry out for commentary. And Unger is silent.
He’s also silent on Monroe’s relationship to slavery, which I find to be ultimately inexcusable. Monroe started out poor, and therefore must have intentionally acquired slaves at the same time that he was building a political career. He cannot use the excuse of Washington, Jefferson and Madison that he “inherited” the slavery problem. He clearly leapt into it. And yet Unger makes so few references to it that one might think Monroe had only waiters and servants in his employ.
Let me be clear - any president who owned slaves – any American who styled himself as representing “freedom” in an otherwise tyrannical world – was living a profound contradiction. Understanding the mental gymnastics they performed to live this contradiction do not absolve them of it, but at least help us to understand them. But this contradiction needs to be addressed and Unger doesn’t even come close to approaching it. Much to the work’s detriment.
Adult biographies of Monroe are few and far between, and I am happy to at least have this volume to familiarize myself with some of the issues of his life. But I will undoubtedly have to look elsewhere for something more substantive. Perhaps I’ll take a look at Ammons 600 page bio – or maybe I’ll just move on to JQA.
But hey, everyone gets to have an opinion, and Unger should be no different. So does he make his case? And if not, does he at least justify the book’s title? Is Monroe really the last of the founding fathers?
Well, no. And no.
In spite of the bias, a slim portrait of Monroe still emerges. The fifth president comes across as thin-skinned, shallow, not a little vain, and fairly self-involved. A man who lived off the largesse of his uncle, constantly grasping for legitimacy and aristocracy, unable (or unwilling) to build a law practice or a plantation, marrying wealth and using friends and connections to succeed.
But that, for all I can tell, is just how Monroe was, and was not what I found annoying about the biography. Instead, there are three areas that I found particularly frustrating, and which I think are indicative of the faults of the bio as a whole.
The first concerns the Louisiana Purchase. Clearly in spite of the fact that everyone alive at the time of the Louisiana Purchase wants to take credit for it, it’s pretty clear that the purchase only happened because Napoleon was eager to sell. The Americans did not put the idea into his head and did not convince him he needed to get rid of it. On this, I think, most historians are agreed.
That said, then the only real responsibility that Monroe had – and the only way he can really claim the purchase as his accomplishment - was to draft a comprehensive, accurate and thorough treaty to close the deal. And this he failed to do. For years afterwards, America was embroiled in disputes with various European powers (most notably Spain) about just exactly what was included in the Louisiana Purchase. Was Florida? Was the panhandle? What about the Northern border? What about the Southern? No one knew, thereby creating international chaos for a generation.
The second area has to do with credit. On the one hand, Unger is quick to dismiss as foolish those writers who credit Quincy Adams with the substance of the Monroe Doctrine, intimating that those writers really don’t understand that the driving personalities of presidents would preclude letting anyone else speak for them. Fair enough.
But on several occasions Unger states that he believes Madison was so incapacitated during and after the War of 1812, that he had given complete control of the government to Monroe. That Madison was really only president in name only, and that Monroe was really running the show. Really? The Madison biographers don’t see it quite that way…
And later, closer to home, after Monroe’s own final midterm elections, Unger paints a portrait of a president completely on the sidelines. Completely outflanked by his own cabinet ministers, all of whom were, it seems, running for president themselves. Again, really? Poor Monroe! If only he had power to fire his cabinet ministers and appoint people who would do what he said. Oh yeah, he did have that power.
But it seems like the sidelines is where Monroe lives most of the time in this biography. Long passages discuss events that Monroe has no direct involvement in. There’s a lot about Washington, which feels pulled from Unger’s bio of him, and from Lafayette’s life, which feels pulled from Unger’s work on him. These sections not only feel like padding, but they actually serve to make Monroe a less important and less compelling figure in his own biography.
The third area has to do with Monroe’s republican politics. Here is a man who inherits the mantle of Jefferson and Madison, who proclaims himself a republican – a member of the party that mocked John Adams and seriously believed that Adams had monarchical intentions because of his opinions on titles and ceremony – bringing a level of pomp and circumstance to the White House that would have made the Sun King blush. And Unger doesn’t bat an eye – transcribing long passages describing the sumptuousness and delicacy of the gowns of Monroe’s wife and daughters. Don’t get me wrong – I’m frustrated by Jefferson’s and Madison’s policies, and actually believe that Monroe’s pursuit of a national bank, of a standing army, of, in short, a stronger federal government, was a good thing. But those beliefs put his so far out of the mainstream of Jeffersonian-Madisonian Republicanism that they cry out for commentary. And Unger is silent.
He’s also silent on Monroe’s relationship to slavery, which I find to be ultimately inexcusable. Monroe started out poor, and therefore must have intentionally acquired slaves at the same time that he was building a political career. He cannot use the excuse of Washington, Jefferson and Madison that he “inherited” the slavery problem. He clearly leapt into it. And yet Unger makes so few references to it that one might think Monroe had only waiters and servants in his employ.
Let me be clear - any president who owned slaves – any American who styled himself as representing “freedom” in an otherwise tyrannical world – was living a profound contradiction. Understanding the mental gymnastics they performed to live this contradiction do not absolve them of it, but at least help us to understand them. But this contradiction needs to be addressed and Unger doesn’t even come close to approaching it. Much to the work’s detriment.
Adult biographies of Monroe are few and far between, and I am happy to at least have this volume to familiarize myself with some of the issues of his life. But I will undoubtedly have to look elsewhere for something more substantive. Perhaps I’ll take a look at Ammons 600 page bio – or maybe I’ll just move on to JQA.
In this biography Harlow Giles Unger brings us a portrait of a man who few know much about today. Born in colonial Virginia Monroe was orphaned at a young age. He took on the responsibility of raising his younger siblings. When the American Revolution broke out Monroe joined up. He became an officer, was wounded at the Battle of Trenton, was decorated by Washington. He served as a Congressman, a Senator, as Governor of Virginia, and as Ambassador to the French Republic. Later he would serve as Secretary of State and Secretary of War under James Madison. He would then succeed Madison as President.
This book has its good and bad points. It is well written and should be easy for the general reader. It is quite informative and gives a good portrait of Monroe. On the downside the author tries a little to hard to build up Monroe by pulling down others around him. Monroe was a firm supporter of the French Revolution and, like Jefferson and Madison, cheered on the slaughter of the former ruling class. This is played down considerably in this book. The author also finds it necessary to try and pull down the character of both John Adams and his son John Quincy Adams. Since the younger Adams was the Secretary of State during Monroe's presidency much credit is given to him for the success of the United States in that era. Unger tries to argue that Monroe was the better diplomat. The only reason that he gives is that Monroe was ambassador to France and Adams was not. He ignores the fact that Adams had been involved in Foreign service for most of his life, including a stint as the secretary and interpreter to the first US ambassador to Russia when he was a young teenager. Adams had served as Ambassador to Prussia and Russia. He had helped to negotiate the Treaty of Ghent. To dismiss his many accomplishments with a single backhanded comment was quite uncalled for.
It is a good book and is well worth reading.
This book has its good and bad points. It is well written and should be easy for the general reader. It is quite informative and gives a good portrait of Monroe. On the downside the author tries a little to hard to build up Monroe by pulling down others around him. Monroe was a firm supporter of the French Revolution and, like Jefferson and Madison, cheered on the slaughter of the former ruling class. This is played down considerably in this book. The author also finds it necessary to try and pull down the character of both John Adams and his son John Quincy Adams. Since the younger Adams was the Secretary of State during Monroe's presidency much credit is given to him for the success of the United States in that era. Unger tries to argue that Monroe was the better diplomat. The only reason that he gives is that Monroe was ambassador to France and Adams was not. He ignores the fact that Adams had been involved in Foreign service for most of his life, including a stint as the secretary and interpreter to the first US ambassador to Russia when he was a young teenager. Adams had served as Ambassador to Prussia and Russia. He had helped to negotiate the Treaty of Ghent. To dismiss his many accomplishments with a single backhanded comment was quite uncalled for.
It is a good book and is well worth reading.
Monroe has an interesting place in history with all the roles he held, and this book hits on those well, but it portrays most of the women in Monroe's life as very one-dimensional.
A very readable biography. I would have liked just a bit more information on Monroe's personal life, but you can't fault the author if the primary sources aren't there (Monroe destroyed many of his personal papers relative to his marriage for example, upon the death of his wife). A lifelong public servant and a man of supreme integrity, Monroe was showered with stupefying adulation as president during the so called 'Era of Good Feelings' after the War of 1812. He actually ran for his second term without opposition. This book shed some light on his accomplishments and in my mind elevated him in the ranks of our greatest leaders. For some reason, Monroe does not receive the attention of our other Founding Fathers. After reading this book, I have to wonder why.
This book is good, but not great. In the end I think Monroe saved Madison reputation, which is not something I thought was necessary. Also, his wife Elizabeth seems to be amazing.
Was an easy read and the author did a great job of making it interesting and fun, but man, this guy really loves Monroe. While I did genuinely enjoy his style of writing, the bias caused me to roll my eyes on more than one occasion. I had initially bought the author’s JQA book as I journey through the Presidents and I’m intrigued to see how he handles a different subject.