You need to sign in or sign up before continuing.
Take a photo of a barcode or cover
107 reviews for:
The Quartet: Orchestrating the Second American Revolution, 1783-1789
Joseph J. Ellis
4.0 AVERAGE
107 reviews for:
The Quartet: Orchestrating the Second American Revolution, 1783-1789
Joseph J. Ellis
4.0 AVERAGE
First off, I want to thank JJ for introducing me with Founding Brothers to one of my favorite historical periods of all time -- the Federalist Era -- and to the entire historical discipline in general. The way Ellis weaves historical sources and historiographical debates into the political narratives of the era is sublime.
The Revolutionary Generation sent Ellis to our era with an assignment to squash the belief that they were "quasi-divine creatures with supernatural powers of mind and heart", and to erase the Progressive dogma that they were entirely economically motivated, constructing a government that has perpetuated its own elitist white agenda. This book accomplishes that, perhaps to a fault, when placed in the context of the other books that I've read by him. It reiterates the same historical argument but not in a novel enough way.
Regardless, JJ is my favorite historical writer. His lifework is more convincing than any other historian's, while also painting the most fascinating picture of this nation's founding -- of complicated men, with their own deeply entrenched character flaws, with their own sets of political and economic ideologies, fighting together and with each other to build a country whose future was entirely not inevitable, and perhaps even inevitably tenuous.
James Madison (unsurprisingly) shines the most here as a powerful, determined thinker, balancing the line between political philosophy and acumen, drafting the Constitution and the Bill of Rights with a sound sense not seen in the other important Framer figures Ellis discusses. I also adore Hamilton as a fiery underdog. Overall, the story of how the Articles were cast aside, and how the Constitution was first whispered about in letters, then proposed, then debated on and finally adopted is interesting . . . but I feel like Ellis may have done a disservice to the real material debate at hand. What about paper money -- a huge issue in Rhode Island's refusal to ratify -- which Ellis does not broach at all? Why does he not pay closer attention to the Progressive / Beardian arguments, looking at the class divides at the time, at the indebted farmers versus mercantile city folk?
Ellis' books are so compelling because they look at how the personalities at the top strive and succeed to build a long-lasting and fruitful nation out of nothing. (And he does this with a masterly writing style worthy of the topic.) But perhaps he should also pay attention to the American people too, and show us the extent to which they contributed to the making of this country.
The Revolutionary Generation sent Ellis to our era with an assignment to squash the belief that they were "quasi-divine creatures with supernatural powers of mind and heart", and to erase the Progressive dogma that they were entirely economically motivated, constructing a government that has perpetuated its own elitist white agenda. This book accomplishes that, perhaps to a fault, when placed in the context of the other books that I've read by him. It reiterates the same historical argument but not in a novel enough way.
Regardless, JJ is my favorite historical writer. His lifework is more convincing than any other historian's, while also painting the most fascinating picture of this nation's founding -- of complicated men, with their own deeply entrenched character flaws, with their own sets of political and economic ideologies, fighting together and with each other to build a country whose future was entirely not inevitable, and perhaps even inevitably tenuous.
James Madison (unsurprisingly) shines the most here as a powerful, determined thinker, balancing the line between political philosophy and acumen, drafting the Constitution and the Bill of Rights with a sound sense not seen in the other important Framer figures Ellis discusses. I also adore Hamilton as a fiery underdog. Overall, the story of how the Articles were cast aside, and how the Constitution was first whispered about in letters, then proposed, then debated on and finally adopted is interesting . . . but I feel like Ellis may have done a disservice to the real material debate at hand. What about paper money -- a huge issue in Rhode Island's refusal to ratify -- which Ellis does not broach at all? Why does he not pay closer attention to the Progressive / Beardian arguments, looking at the class divides at the time, at the indebted farmers versus mercantile city folk?
Ellis' books are so compelling because they look at how the personalities at the top strive and succeed to build a long-lasting and fruitful nation out of nothing. (And he does this with a masterly writing style worthy of the topic.) But perhaps he should also pay attention to the American people too, and show us the extent to which they contributed to the making of this country.
challenging
informative
inspiring
medium-paced
Perfect if you enjoy history and also have an interest during the American Revolution and after. The United States' history could of been so different if slavery ended in 1800 like Jefferson wanted. But sadly it fell short of being accepted by Congress by one vote.
I listened to the audiobook as part of the Goodreads Summer Reading Challenge and found the story of how the founding fathers convinced the colonies to forge a permanent bond interesting.
informative
slow-paced
Joseph Ellis has written one of the best analyses of the political science of the early United States I may ever read. My curiosity related to exploring why the Articles of Confederation failed has rewarded me with this excellently detailed and yet quite short volume on the four individuals who, as Ellis puts forward, were instrumental in essentially making a "second American revolution". This revolution of course was more of a domestic political and cultural one, rather than militant.
Ellis weaves his analysis through the stories of four of the most important figures in Revolutionary America: George Washington, James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and John Jay. Ellis examines their lives and views after the war was won and the much harder task of governing lay before them. The Articles were failing to unite a nation that was already riven with regional differences. The task of unifying the continent-spanning former colonies into one nation would seem near impossible, particularly when the general population remained allergic to any idea of strong central government.
The most interesting ideas presented and analyzed by Ellis tie directly to modern day fights about what kind of country the US should be. Should the US be a loose confederation of states or one nationalistic empire ready to spread its territory and influence across North America? Should the Articles be amended or replaced completely, and how should such amendments or replacements guarantee liberties for the people? How can the national republic thrive if the population that comprises it would, if given the chance, render it useless and divide it into localized states (the danger of direct democracy leading to a populist breakdown)? How can we reconcile our sanctification of democratic values if we put in institutions that are inherently undemocratic and elitist? How do we address slavery as a nation, or even as states?
Ellis does take a few staunch stands in the ideological front, mentioning that the much vaunted "originalist" interpretation of certain Supreme Court justices is farcical when one looks closely at the history. The Constitution was designed to be a living document. Of course, the framers of the constitution, particularly the Quartet, were aware of the struggles and risks, and they of course did not have the answers for everything. Indeed, Ellis also recognizes that they had to make distasteful sacrifices, such as on the question of slavery, that to us would be reprehensible, but to those in that time period were necessary to assure the stability of the union that could then rid itself of that toxic institution.
A high recommend from me for any history buff or anyone with an interest in what the vaunted "framers" really thought about the Constitution. I am glad people like Ellis are able to concisely and concretely provide excellent analysis of these topics that are so important to modern day political discourse.
Ellis weaves his analysis through the stories of four of the most important figures in Revolutionary America: George Washington, James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and John Jay. Ellis examines their lives and views after the war was won and the much harder task of governing lay before them. The Articles were failing to unite a nation that was already riven with regional differences. The task of unifying the continent-spanning former colonies into one nation would seem near impossible, particularly when the general population remained allergic to any idea of strong central government.
The most interesting ideas presented and analyzed by Ellis tie directly to modern day fights about what kind of country the US should be. Should the US be a loose confederation of states or one nationalistic empire ready to spread its territory and influence across North America? Should the Articles be amended or replaced completely, and how should such amendments or replacements guarantee liberties for the people? How can the national republic thrive if the population that comprises it would, if given the chance, render it useless and divide it into localized states (the danger of direct democracy leading to a populist breakdown)? How can we reconcile our sanctification of democratic values if we put in institutions that are inherently undemocratic and elitist? How do we address slavery as a nation, or even as states?
Ellis does take a few staunch stands in the ideological front, mentioning that the much vaunted "originalist" interpretation of certain Supreme Court justices is farcical when one looks closely at the history. The Constitution was designed to be a living document. Of course, the framers of the constitution, particularly the Quartet, were aware of the struggles and risks, and they of course did not have the answers for everything. Indeed, Ellis also recognizes that they had to make distasteful sacrifices, such as on the question of slavery, that to us would be reprehensible, but to those in that time period were necessary to assure the stability of the union that could then rid itself of that toxic institution.
A high recommend from me for any history buff or anyone with an interest in what the vaunted "framers" really thought about the Constitution. I am glad people like Ellis are able to concisely and concretely provide excellent analysis of these topics that are so important to modern day political discourse.
informative
inspiring
reflective
medium-paced
A succinct overview of what came after the War for Independence. Very informative look at how the Constitution and Bill of Rights came into being, and what the basis of American democracy was built on (egos).
informative
medium-paced
medium-paced
A nice synopsis of what was involved in the development of the Constitution, and to a much lesser extent the Bill of Rights. Ellis writes clearly and knowingly about the America's founding era.