Scan barcode
bkeving_74's review against another edition
5.0
A very thorough history of this time period
I learned so much about the founders and the emergence of the United States in this book. My goal is to read each of the books from the Oxford History of the United States as well as supplementary books on periods the series does not cover. Having read this and Glorious Cause I am off to a good start!
I learned so much about the founders and the emergence of the United States in this book. My goal is to read each of the books from the Oxford History of the United States as well as supplementary books on periods the series does not cover. Having read this and Glorious Cause I am off to a good start!
wescovington's review against another edition
5.0
Wood was charged with writing a definitive comprehensive history of the early history of the nation of the United States and he succeeded admirably. His approach is exhaustive and reveals a highly detailed and nuanced portrait of a new country.
The United States took a while to find its place in the world. The government didn't know what it was or who should participate in it. People didn't know if they were still English or were they American. And what were Americans?
Two political figures dominated the era: Washington and Jefferson, with Jefferson having a much deeper impact on the time. Washington's party, the Federalists, dominated the country early and then faded away. Jefferson's Republican party emerged the winner, although there were enough Federalists, along with social factors, to keep the country from turning into Jefferson's dream of a predominantly rural country dominated by farmers.
The book concludes with Jefferson, in retirement, writing about the proposed Missouri Compromise. He had realized that slavery was entirely incompatible with the vision of the United States that he had. Jefferson was scared that it would tear the country apart. Which it did. But for a few decades, those differences were put aside. There was a nation to build. Corners had to be cut.
The United States took a while to find its place in the world. The government didn't know what it was or who should participate in it. People didn't know if they were still English or were they American. And what were Americans?
Two political figures dominated the era: Washington and Jefferson, with Jefferson having a much deeper impact on the time. Washington's party, the Federalists, dominated the country early and then faded away. Jefferson's Republican party emerged the winner, although there were enough Federalists, along with social factors, to keep the country from turning into Jefferson's dream of a predominantly rural country dominated by farmers.
The book concludes with Jefferson, in retirement, writing about the proposed Missouri Compromise. He had realized that slavery was entirely incompatible with the vision of the United States that he had. Jefferson was scared that it would tear the country apart. Which it did. But for a few decades, those differences were put aside. There was a nation to build. Corners had to be cut.
tsharris's review against another edition
5.0
Another classic addition to the Oxford History of the United States series, if not quite as much of a classic as McPherson. Also functions well as a sequel to his own "The Radicalism of the American Revolution," showing what happened as the breakdown of republican virtues continued after the birth of the new republic in 1789. Ably weaves the social history - much of the middle chapters of the book - between the high politics.
statman's review against another edition
4.0
Another book in the Oxford History series. All of them excellent and I would recommend all of them if you like history. This one covers the 25 years after the Constitutional Convention. The main premise is that this time period was critical to the establishment of our current form of culture and government. During this time America changed from a republic to a democracy contrary to many of the original ideas of the founding fathers. It is a long book but well worth your time.
raruther's review against another edition
informative
reflective
slow-paced
4.25
Empire of Liberty is split into two primary sections: a chronological history of the United States from 1789 through 1800, focusing on the political struggle between the Republicans and Federalists (the first 300ish pages of the book), which is solid but unexceptional (I preferred John Ferling's account in the last third of A Leap in the Dark), and a longitudinal sociological survey of various aspects of Jeffersonian America where the book really hits its stride. Every chapter from "Republican Society" on has something interesting to say about the unintended consequences of the Jeffersonian political revolution for American society, religion, and culture.
davehershey's review against another edition
5.0
The stories of the Revolutionary War and that of the Civil War are both fascinating to any fan of history. Last year I enjoyed reading the entries from the Oxford History of the United States on each of those two time periods. I figured it was about time to read about what happened in the interim, so I read through Gordon Wood’s Empire of Liberty.
It was fantastic.
Here are a few of the things I took away from this great book:
*When people say “the Founding Fathers believed” they either ignore or forget the fact that the founding fathers were diverse and had different views.
*I was surprised that so many in early America expected there to eventually be a king, and that most were okay with that.
*I really liked Alexander Hamilton, he came out of this as my favorite founding father. On the other hand, Wood made Washington appear kind of as a weak president, being pulled between Hamilton on one side and Jackson on the other. In other words, I do not feel like I knew Washington better after this book, but you really get to know Hamilton, Jefferson and Madison.
*I already knew I would like the religious history chapter, but I was surprised how interesting I found the chapters on economics and judiciary. The chapter telling of the growth of the Supreme Court and the story of John Marshall was interesting.
*I also enjoyed learning more about the war of 1812.
*Finally, the existence of slavery in early America continues to blow my mind. It is depressing how so many who spoke so highly of freedom and liberty did not pass this to the slaves. Further, it was incredibly sad to learn that right after the revolution most in the south thought slavery would just end but a variety of reasons led to the growth and defense of slavery to new levels.
It was fantastic.
Here are a few of the things I took away from this great book:
*When people say “the Founding Fathers believed” they either ignore or forget the fact that the founding fathers were diverse and had different views.
*I was surprised that so many in early America expected there to eventually be a king, and that most were okay with that.
*I really liked Alexander Hamilton, he came out of this as my favorite founding father. On the other hand, Wood made Washington appear kind of as a weak president, being pulled between Hamilton on one side and Jackson on the other. In other words, I do not feel like I knew Washington better after this book, but you really get to know Hamilton, Jefferson and Madison.
*I already knew I would like the religious history chapter, but I was surprised how interesting I found the chapters on economics and judiciary. The chapter telling of the growth of the Supreme Court and the story of John Marshall was interesting.
*I also enjoyed learning more about the war of 1812.
*Finally, the existence of slavery in early America continues to blow my mind. It is depressing how so many who spoke so highly of freedom and liberty did not pass this to the slaves. Further, it was incredibly sad to learn that right after the revolution most in the south thought slavery would just end but a variety of reasons led to the growth and defense of slavery to new levels.
lenzen's review against another edition
5.0
These days it seems that most those on the left, now that they have a slight majority, want to move us away from being a Constitutional Republic to being more of a pure Democracy. This book provides some great history on why the Founders went with a Republic versus pure Democracy. To put it briefly, going into the Constitutional Convention they found that pure democracies in the states had tended to not respect individual rights, especially property rights. Pure Democracies were also prone to spend irresponsibly and then pass laws to cancel debt or devalue their currencies.
Other early struggles to put checks on pure democracy involved what role the court should have in the government. Initially it was debated whether the Supreme Court should have the power to declare laws of Congress invalid. The SCOTUS was ultimately recognized to have this power, but Jefferson and many Democratic Republicans at the time were furious.
Another central struggle described in the book is that between Federalists and Jeffersonian Republicans. The Federalists essentially were aiming to emulate Britain with a "noble" class of citizens elected to rule but after that not interfered with much by "lesser" classes. Jefferson wanted a greater role for "common" and "middling" "sorts". Jefferson and Hamilton are stars of this conflict.
The author has an interesting interpretation on the War of 1812 that I had not previously heard. Essentially the War was a long time in coming after economic efforts had failed to establish that the US was its own sovereign power to be respected on par with European powers. Wood admires how Madison conducted the war while remaining true to his Republican principles (no individual rights violated even in time of national crisis).
The author is quite objective and does not seem to be pushing an agenda. Although he clearly admires Jefferson he presents the Federalist cause fairly. He is not a hero worshiper of the Founders. He describes their weaknesses and how they fell short of their ideals: especially in the treatment of women and slaves. At the same time he does not vilify them. He does a good job of being an objective historian.
The book was more exciting to read than expected. I thought it would be a chore after I had the books in the series on the Civil and Revolutionary Wars. I was pleasantly surprised there were very few dull parts. I would rate it as a more interesting than The Glorious Cause (on the Revolutionary War) but slightly less so than Battle Cry of Freedom (on the Civil War) about on par with What Hath God Wrought (1815-1848).
Other early struggles to put checks on pure democracy involved what role the court should have in the government. Initially it was debated whether the Supreme Court should have the power to declare laws of Congress invalid. The SCOTUS was ultimately recognized to have this power, but Jefferson and many Democratic Republicans at the time were furious.
Another central struggle described in the book is that between Federalists and Jeffersonian Republicans. The Federalists essentially were aiming to emulate Britain with a "noble" class of citizens elected to rule but after that not interfered with much by "lesser" classes. Jefferson wanted a greater role for "common" and "middling" "sorts". Jefferson and Hamilton are stars of this conflict.
The author has an interesting interpretation on the War of 1812 that I had not previously heard. Essentially the War was a long time in coming after economic efforts had failed to establish that the US was its own sovereign power to be respected on par with European powers. Wood admires how Madison conducted the war while remaining true to his Republican principles (no individual rights violated even in time of national crisis).
The author is quite objective and does not seem to be pushing an agenda. Although he clearly admires Jefferson he presents the Federalist cause fairly. He is not a hero worshiper of the Founders. He describes their weaknesses and how they fell short of their ideals: especially in the treatment of women and slaves. At the same time he does not vilify them. He does a good job of being an objective historian.
The book was more exciting to read than expected. I thought it would be a chore after I had the books in the series on the Civil and Revolutionary Wars. I was pleasantly surprised there were very few dull parts. I would rate it as a more interesting than The Glorious Cause (on the Revolutionary War) but slightly less so than Battle Cry of Freedom (on the Civil War) about on par with What Hath God Wrought (1815-1848).