|
Even if those views are commonly acceptable, Ellis' frequent (very frequent) statements that Jefferson's "mind" was working a certain way seemed a jarring departure from the rest of the book's attention to facts and sound almost like a personal position rather than one derived from historical research. Competition must have been very light that year.In addition, Ellis' treatment of Jefferson just sounded really off to me. Will they live here and interbreed. If they are to be relocated, where and how will the effort be funded.
He wanders back and forth amongst and between various personalities of the time and, then, kind of settles in with Jefferson and Adams. The relevance of the book to today's political environment is overwhelming. This could be just another flaw in Ellis' writing but it seems to come across as an oddly sneering-kind of presentation.Can't really fault the information provided by the book and that is the only reason that it gets 3 stars from me. I'm comforted, as I said, to realize I was wrong.2) Ellis has little regard and no respect for Jefferson. I believe the truth comes more closely reflected in the closing pages of the book where Ellis, once again, describes the differences between Adams and Jefferson as pragmatism v idealism.Ellis says with some frequency that the disputes between Federalism and Republicanism as the young nation grew were about sincere opinions of what government should look like to achieve the goals of the Revolution. Aye - therein lies the rub as described by both Jefferson and Adams.We may not, today, often discuss states rights with the passion of the country during the time frame of Founding Brothers but the discussions about individual rights vs majority rights and the extent of federal government reach still, definitely, ring loudly.In fact, the tension between these two views is necessary for both the identification of common ground and the revelation of the "middle".
I've not studied this period in detail before and had always gotten the impression that slavery just wasn't really important to people making decisions. There are pages of text I've underlined with the plan to post those quotes on certain political blogs dealing with diverse topics.I took from this book two things that were new to me:1) A level of comfort (odd, I know) that the slavery question was very alive and active from the beginning of our nation even if "silence" was the form taken to leave the issue to a future generation. The title doesn't even make sense. Until policies are tested in the rough waters of the extremes, the success of those policies in calm waters cannot be predicted.I will not recommend this book willingly but I will offer it to others I know who are interested in this period. This tension must continue to exist. But, here again, what goals were there. I'll wait until I've read more about old TJ and the early days of the nation to see if Ellis's view is shared by other reputable historians. I was seriously tempted to grant it no more than 2.
Truly - before I read this book, I honestly believed that slavery was more an intellectual discussion point at this time rather than one of raging passions deliberately put aside to further the stability of the (then) nation as a whole. This was so outside my own imperfectly formed and unresearched view of the man that I was astonished. Does this mean that these 2 are the "brothers".I simply cannot understand how this book was awarded the Pulitzer. I also was never aware of Jackson's speech that bluntly said - ok, if you free the slaves, where will they go. My less than enthusiastic position on this book is, primarily, that I found the writing style to be extremely disappointing and, at times, almost unbearable.I'll put it this way: I much appreciate Ellis' choice of words, I just wish he had chosen fewer of them.The structure of the book is so disjointed that I was left with the impression that Ellis, perhaps, just gathered some class notes from his teaching days and bound them together. I was struck however, by Ellis' continuous (and over-used) phrases such as "Jefferson, in his own mind.". Unanswerable questions at that time leading to that pact of silence. Repeating, I've not previously been a student of this period so I do not know if this is common wisdom among historians.
That being said, it was still interesting I would recommend the as long as going into it people understand the bias. There is a notable bias towards Adams, that start to grate on your nerves, and I think it stems from the current political trend toward collectivism and against individualism. This book is a quick read for someone interested in the Founding Fathers who doesn't want to invest in 800 pages. But i have to agree with some of the other reviews concerning bias.
Anything by Joe Ellis is a must have for your historical library. An excellently written volume of many of the founding fathers, their thoughts and disagreements on how the country should look after winning the fight for freedom.
You'll be susprised at who did what and why. Extremely well written. Just a great book. The writting is great and I always recommend books by this author since his writting style is smoot and easily digested. The book focuses on 6 major events during the formative years and tries to give the reader the "behind the scenes" view of each situation. Really gives a unseen insight into these people.
I would have given this 5 stars if it weren't for his writing style. His writing style wasn't horrible, but definitely took some getting used to. This was, in fact, the first history book I've read since college 20+ years ago. I found a combination of '$50 words' where simpler words would have sufficed, and long, winding, complex sentences at times that slowed down my reading. I've since read other history authors (McCullough, Ambrose, etc) that I found much more readable. A co-worker got me interested in trying reading some history, and this was the first book I picked up. I loved the topics covered, the approach, and the points that Ellis made.
|
