You need to sign in or sign up before continuing.
Take a photo of a barcode or cover
A review by gadicohen93
The Quartet: Orchestrating the Second American Revolution, 1783-1789 by Joseph J. Ellis
3.0
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.