What do you think?
Rate this book
Founding Partisans: Hamilton, Madison, Jefferson, Adams and the Brawling Birth of American Politics
From bestselling historian and Pulitzer Prize finalist H.W. Brands, a revelatory history of the shocking emergence of vicious political division at the birth of the United States.
To the framers of the Constitution, political parties were a fatal threat to republican virtues. They had suffered the consequences of partisan politics in Britain before the American Revolution, and they wanted nothing similar for America. Yet parties emerged even before the Constitution was ratified, and they took firmer root in the following decade. In Founding Partisans , master historian H. W. Brands has crafted a fresh and lively narrative of the early years of the republic as the Founding Fathers fought one another with competing visions of what our nation would be.
The first party, the Federalists, formed around Alexander Hamilton, James Madison and their efforts to overthrow the Articles of Confederation and make the federal government more robust. Their opponents organized as the Antifederalists, who feared the corruption and encroachments on liberty that a strong central government would surely bring. The Antifederalists lost but regrouped under the new Constitution as the Republicans, led by Thomas Jefferson, whose bruising contest against Federalist John Adams marked the climax of this turbulent chapter of American political history.
The country’s first years unfolded in a contentious spiral of ugly elections and blatant violations of the Constitution. Still, peaceful transfers of power continued, and the nascent country made its way towards global dominance, against all odds. Founding Partisans is a powerful reminder that fierce partisanship is a problem as old as the republic.
To the framers of the Constitution, political parties were a fatal threat to republican virtues. They had suffered the consequences of partisan politics in Britain before the American Revolution, and they wanted nothing similar for America. Yet parties emerged even before the Constitution was ratified, and they took firmer root in the following decade. In Founding Partisans , master historian H. W. Brands has crafted a fresh and lively narrative of the early years of the republic as the Founding Fathers fought one another with competing visions of what our nation would be.
The first party, the Federalists, formed around Alexander Hamilton, James Madison and their efforts to overthrow the Articles of Confederation and make the federal government more robust. Their opponents organized as the Antifederalists, who feared the corruption and encroachments on liberty that a strong central government would surely bring. The Antifederalists lost but regrouped under the new Constitution as the Republicans, led by Thomas Jefferson, whose bruising contest against Federalist John Adams marked the climax of this turbulent chapter of American political history.
The country’s first years unfolded in a contentious spiral of ugly elections and blatant violations of the Constitution. Still, peaceful transfers of power continued, and the nascent country made its way towards global dominance, against all odds. Founding Partisans is a powerful reminder that fierce partisanship is a problem as old as the republic.
464 pages, Hardcover
First published November 7, 2023
About the author
H.W. Brands
88 books1,031 followersHenry William Brands was born in Portland, Oregon, where he lived until he went to California for college. He attended Stanford University and studied history and mathematics. After graduating he became a traveling salesman, with a territory that spanned the West from the Pacific to Colorado. His wanderlust diminished after several trips across the Great Basin, and he turned to sales of a different sort, namely teaching. For nine years he taught mathematics and history in high school and community college. Meanwhile he resumed his formal education, earning graduate degrees in mathematics and history, concluding with a doctorate in history from the University of Texas at Austin. He worked as an oral historian at the University of Texas Law School for a year, then became a visiting professor of history at Vanderbilt University. In 1987 he joined the history faculty at Texas A&M University, where he taught for seventeen years. In 2005 he returned to the University of Texas, where he is the Dickson Allen Anderson Centennial Professor of History and Professor of Government. ~ He has written twenty-two books, coauthored or edited five others, and published dozens of articles and scores of reviews. His books include Traitor to His Class, The Money Men, Andrew Jackson, The Age of Gold, The First American, TR, The Strange Death of American Liberalism, What America Owes the World, and The Devil We Knew. His articles have appeared in the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Post, the International Herald Tribune, the Boston Globe, the Atlantic Monthly, the Smithsonian, the National Interest, the American Historical Review, the Journal of American History, the Political Science Quarterly, American History, and many other newspapers, magazines and journals. ~ His writings have received critical and popular acclaim. The First American was a finalist for the Pulitzer Prize and the Los Angeles Times Prize, as well as a New York Times bestseller. The Age of Gold was a Washington Post Best Book of 2002 and a San Francisco Chronicle bestseller. Andrew Jackson was a Chicago Tribune Best Book of 2005 and a Washington Post bestseller. What America Owes the World was a finalist for the Lionel Gelber Prize in international affairs. The Wages of Globalism was a Choice Outstanding Academic Book winner. Lone Star Nation won the Deolece Parmelee Award. ~ He is a member of various honorary societies, including the Society of American Historians and the Philosophical Society of Texas. He is a regular guest on national radio and television programs, and is frequently interviewed by the American and foreign press. His writings have been published in several countries and translated into German, French, Russian, Chinese, Japanese, and Korean.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 75 reviews
October 27, 2023
A particular pet peeve of my lately is when people say, "This country has never been more divided!" Do you have any idea how badly Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton hated each other? Hamilton ended up dead over politics! You still don't believe the political divisions were bad in the U.S. before? Then let me point you at H.W. Brands' Founding Partisans. Never has a title been so apt.
Let me just get to the point. This book is fantastic. H.W. Brands is the type of author who makes anything interesting. He is one of the few authors whose books are automatic buys for me regardless of the subject. This one, in particular, might be his best yet. Brands weaves in an extraordinary amount of primary quotes. The book reads like a novel of the Founding Fathers being jerks to each other. It makes the narrative accessible to any reader who wants to know who hated who in the early U.S. It will never not be funny to me how badly John Adams hated Benjamin Franklin. How could someone hate Benny? Come read and find out.
(This book was provided as an advance copy by Netgalley and Doubleday Books.)
Let me just get to the point. This book is fantastic. H.W. Brands is the type of author who makes anything interesting. He is one of the few authors whose books are automatic buys for me regardless of the subject. This one, in particular, might be his best yet. Brands weaves in an extraordinary amount of primary quotes. The book reads like a novel of the Founding Fathers being jerks to each other. It makes the narrative accessible to any reader who wants to know who hated who in the early U.S. It will never not be funny to me how badly John Adams hated Benjamin Franklin. How could someone hate Benny? Come read and find out.
(This book was provided as an advance copy by Netgalley and Doubleday Books.)
April 9, 2024
This book was interesting at times, but I found it a bit of a slog to get through. Brands has a solid grip on American history, no doubt about that. He dishes out facts and stories from the founding era, showing us the real nitty-gritty of early American politics. But some of the the time, it feels like he's just showing off how much he knows.
One thing that really got to me was how Brands can sometimes lose the forest for the trees. He gets so bogged down in the specifics—like, do we really need to know every little back-and-forth letter between Hamilton and Jefferson? It's like, we get it, they didn't see eye to eye, but the constant barrage of detail can make your eyes glaze over.
And the narrative, well, it can be hit or miss. When Brands is on point, he paints this vivid picture of political drama, which is pretty cool. But then he slips into historian mode and starts throwing dates and names at you like there's going to be a test later. It can be a bit much, making the book feel like a marathon at times.
Now, on the upside, when Brands digs into how these early partisan conflicts shape what we see in American politics today, it's actually pretty interesting. He's got this way of connecting the past and present that makes you see things in a new light. But just when you're getting into it, he'll hit you with another wave of exhaustive detail, and the momentum is lost.
Another thing that bugged me was how the book sometimes feels disjointed. It's like Brands has all these pieces of the political puzzle, but he doesn't always fit them together in a way that makes sense. You end up with a lot of information, but the big picture can be fuzzy.
The style of the book is accessible, I'll give him that. Brands doesn't go overboard with academic jargon, which is a relief. But the thing is, a friendly writing style doesn't always make up for the times when the content drags. And let's be real, there are parts of this book that drag.
In summary, "Founding Partisans" is a bit of a mixed bag. While it's rich in detail and offers some intriguing insights into American partisanship's roots, it can also be a slog. For history buffs, it's got some gems, but for the casual reader, it might feel like homework.
One thing that really got to me was how Brands can sometimes lose the forest for the trees. He gets so bogged down in the specifics—like, do we really need to know every little back-and-forth letter between Hamilton and Jefferson? It's like, we get it, they didn't see eye to eye, but the constant barrage of detail can make your eyes glaze over.
And the narrative, well, it can be hit or miss. When Brands is on point, he paints this vivid picture of political drama, which is pretty cool. But then he slips into historian mode and starts throwing dates and names at you like there's going to be a test later. It can be a bit much, making the book feel like a marathon at times.
Now, on the upside, when Brands digs into how these early partisan conflicts shape what we see in American politics today, it's actually pretty interesting. He's got this way of connecting the past and present that makes you see things in a new light. But just when you're getting into it, he'll hit you with another wave of exhaustive detail, and the momentum is lost.
Another thing that bugged me was how the book sometimes feels disjointed. It's like Brands has all these pieces of the political puzzle, but he doesn't always fit them together in a way that makes sense. You end up with a lot of information, but the big picture can be fuzzy.
The style of the book is accessible, I'll give him that. Brands doesn't go overboard with academic jargon, which is a relief. But the thing is, a friendly writing style doesn't always make up for the times when the content drags. And let's be real, there are parts of this book that drag.
In summary, "Founding Partisans" is a bit of a mixed bag. While it's rich in detail and offers some intriguing insights into American partisanship's roots, it can also be a slog. For history buffs, it's got some gems, but for the casual reader, it might feel like homework.
July 2, 2023
This is a very well researched and written book about the development of the Constitution, Bill of Rights and amendments during the early days of American history. The author makes great use of quotes from the main participants: James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, John Adams and Thomas Jefferson. Brands details the back forth on a number of issues: what type of governmental model, terms of office, a national bank and many more. He also presents the development of the party system which some of the early founding fathers hoped to avoid. Overall, a well done history that is well worth the time to read and understand how our nation came to be from a political sense.
I received a free Kindle copy of this book courtesy of Net Galley and the publisher with the understanding that I would post a review on Net Galley, Goodreads, Amazon and my nonfiction book review blog. I also posted it to my Facebook page.
I received a free Kindle copy of this book courtesy of Net Galley and the publisher with the understanding that I would post a review on Net Galley, Goodreads, Amazon and my nonfiction book review blog. I also posted it to my Facebook page.
February 13, 2024
Hamilton's a bitch
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
August 23, 2024
This was nearly unreadable. Bland statements followed by lines (and lines) of direct quotes - so lots of direct materials but the author added no additional input. I was hoping for further insight into the warring personalities of Jefferson, Madison vs Hamilton and Adams but got nothing. Moreover, it sometimes seemed like the author was making statement simply so he could put a lengthy quote after it? If you took out the direct quotes this would be 100 pages long and read like a middle school social studies textbook.
An absolute slog with no added value.
An absolute slog with no added value.
July 17, 2023
If there's one thing H.W. Brand can be counted on, it is a well-written narrative. Here, he succeeds again. He does a great job making history readable for a wider audience. More academics should follow in his steps; they are few and far between.
I appreciate how Brands brings Hamilton back down to earth after being inflated (and sung about) for the last few years. His interpretation is evenhanded, and he sticks to the context of the time. Important in all of this was the question of viability of the state following independence. This is not to say that Brands agrees with Hamilton, nor should he, but he gets what the popularity has left out.
While this time is often portrayed as a great, patriotic age, Brands makes it clear that it was much more tumultuous and fragile than we like to think it was. His book does a great job at examining all of these issues and how they played out, in a way that ensured the future success of the United States.
Founding Partisans isn't his longest work, but he manages to really portray the importance of the age, with a striking relevance to today's political polarization. The greatest contribution that Brands gives us is that there is a way out of the animosity
I appreciate how Brands brings Hamilton back down to earth after being inflated (and sung about) for the last few years. His interpretation is evenhanded, and he sticks to the context of the time. Important in all of this was the question of viability of the state following independence. This is not to say that Brands agrees with Hamilton, nor should he, but he gets what the popularity has left out.
While this time is often portrayed as a great, patriotic age, Brands makes it clear that it was much more tumultuous and fragile than we like to think it was. His book does a great job at examining all of these issues and how they played out, in a way that ensured the future success of the United States.
Founding Partisans isn't his longest work, but he manages to really portray the importance of the age, with a striking relevance to today's political polarization. The greatest contribution that Brands gives us is that there is a way out of the animosity
November 25, 2023
Founding Partisans: Hamilton, Madison, Jefferson, Adams, and the Brawling Birth of American Politics
There are some people, regardless of political leanings, who place great reverence and importance upon the ‘Founding Fathers,’ their supposed ideals, and their actions & intentions as framers of the Constitution. There’s no doubt that these men did important work, but such deification tends to forget that they were exactly that: just men, fallible, opinionated, and prone to exactly the same kind of political and petty squabbling as we are today.
In “Founding Partisans,” author H.W. Brands largely uses the Founders’ own words to paint this more realistic, human portrait of the interactions and political arguments between these men. I think it really behooves us today, when arguing about constitutional rights or, more specifically, about how elements of the constitution were *intended*, to be reminded, as we are in this book, that the founders themselves strongly disagreed on many topics, that there was almost never consensus but negotiation, that in many cases nobody got exactly what they wanted.
The thing that I noted particularly about “Founding Partisans,” as I mentioned, is that a majority of the narrative is told by direct quotation of the founders’ writings and speeches, with little editorializing. That it is written with a largely neutral voice, allowing the subjects themselves to make their points and illustrate their differences and disagreements with one another, keeps the book from becoming overtly partisan itself. It also avoids the pitfall of so many popular historical biographies of being a bit too generous in characterizing its subjects; sometimes it’s more fun to read about the founders’ flaws and their snipping at one another than another loving ode.
Who is this book for? People who are really interested in the ‘deep lore’ of America’s founding and Constitution, who want to hear just as much about the things that *didn’t* happen due to disagreements as they want to hear about what *did,* and who don’t require any musical numbers or extensive speculating or editorializing to find those things interesting.
In the current day, anyone can look at the American government, with its parties and partisan fighting, and wonder how anything ever gets accomplished (if it does at all). What Brands shows us in ‘Founding Partisans’ is that, really, some things never change.
There are some people, regardless of political leanings, who place great reverence and importance upon the ‘Founding Fathers,’ their supposed ideals, and their actions & intentions as framers of the Constitution. There’s no doubt that these men did important work, but such deification tends to forget that they were exactly that: just men, fallible, opinionated, and prone to exactly the same kind of political and petty squabbling as we are today.
In “Founding Partisans,” author H.W. Brands largely uses the Founders’ own words to paint this more realistic, human portrait of the interactions and political arguments between these men. I think it really behooves us today, when arguing about constitutional rights or, more specifically, about how elements of the constitution were *intended*, to be reminded, as we are in this book, that the founders themselves strongly disagreed on many topics, that there was almost never consensus but negotiation, that in many cases nobody got exactly what they wanted.
The thing that I noted particularly about “Founding Partisans,” as I mentioned, is that a majority of the narrative is told by direct quotation of the founders’ writings and speeches, with little editorializing. That it is written with a largely neutral voice, allowing the subjects themselves to make their points and illustrate their differences and disagreements with one another, keeps the book from becoming overtly partisan itself. It also avoids the pitfall of so many popular historical biographies of being a bit too generous in characterizing its subjects; sometimes it’s more fun to read about the founders’ flaws and their snipping at one another than another loving ode.
Who is this book for? People who are really interested in the ‘deep lore’ of America’s founding and Constitution, who want to hear just as much about the things that *didn’t* happen due to disagreements as they want to hear about what *did,* and who don’t require any musical numbers or extensive speculating or editorializing to find those things interesting.
In the current day, anyone can look at the American government, with its parties and partisan fighting, and wonder how anything ever gets accomplished (if it does at all). What Brands shows us in ‘Founding Partisans’ is that, really, some things never change.
January 30, 2024
I have enjoyed several of Brands' recent books and had looked forward to this one. But "Founding Partisans" didn't engage me as others had, delivering few new insights or revelations. Large sections of the book simply reprint extensive quotes by our founding fathers, often connected by a single transitional sentence from Brands. I was also surprised Brands didn't touch upon the Louisiana Purchase. That was one area where I would love to have read the founders' background thoughts on that historic turn, an ironic answer to Federalist concerns over a Jefferson presidency.
February 26, 2024
In examining "Founding Partisans," I observed the book grappling with the emergence of intense political divisions in the early American republic. It explores the ideological clashes between Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson, with Federalists advocating for a strong central government and Anti-Federalists championing states' rights and individual liberty. The book delves into the origins of American political parties, offering insights into their lasting impact on the nation's political landscape.
Despite its comprehensive exploration of how Federalists and Republicans emerged and clashed during George Washington's eight years in office, I found that the book did not present any new information for me. It thoroughly covers the development of the Party system through the writings, especially letters, of Hamilton, Jefferson, Madison, and others from that era. Readers interested in understanding how these figures felt about their oppositions and even members of their own parties may appreciate Brands' approach to the subject.
While reading, one recurring thought was the lost art of letter writing. Future Historians who look back at our present time may struggle to discern how politicians truly felt about their colleagues or opponents, given the absence of personal letters. I assign this book a three-star rating primarily because it didn't offer new insights beyond what has already been extensively documente
Despite its comprehensive exploration of how Federalists and Republicans emerged and clashed during George Washington's eight years in office, I found that the book did not present any new information for me. It thoroughly covers the development of the Party system through the writings, especially letters, of Hamilton, Jefferson, Madison, and others from that era. Readers interested in understanding how these figures felt about their oppositions and even members of their own parties may appreciate Brands' approach to the subject.
While reading, one recurring thought was the lost art of letter writing. Future Historians who look back at our present time may struggle to discern how politicians truly felt about their colleagues or opponents, given the absence of personal letters. I assign this book a three-star rating primarily because it didn't offer new insights beyond what has already been extensively documente
May 5, 2024
It's a good book on the early days of the American Republic where Alexander Hamilton and James Madison showed the foresight to realize that the weak Articles of Confederation needed to be replaced with a stronger government that took some of the authority previously held by the states and delegated them to a Federal government with three distinct branches composed of a bicameral legislative branche, a strengthened executive in the firm of a president and a judiciary with built in checks and balances. The ratification was aided by the arguments of the Federalist Papers.
The first presidential election was uncontested, with George Washington becoming the first chief executive with John Adams as the first vice-president for the first two terms. The third election was the first contested election between Federalist John Adams and Republican Thomas Jefferson, with John Adams elected to the presidency with Republican Jefferson as his VP. The election had the Republicans turning out the Federalist from leadership for the first time, aided by the disloyalty of Alexander Hamilton to the Federalist party.
It is a good book that has weaknesses in the structure of the footnotes and the lack of a bibliography.
The first presidential election was uncontested, with George Washington becoming the first chief executive with John Adams as the first vice-president for the first two terms. The third election was the first contested election between Federalist John Adams and Republican Thomas Jefferson, with John Adams elected to the presidency with Republican Jefferson as his VP. The election had the Republicans turning out the Federalist from leadership for the first time, aided by the disloyalty of Alexander Hamilton to the Federalist party.
It is a good book that has weaknesses in the structure of the footnotes and the lack of a bibliography.
February 21, 2024
Founding Partisans
H.W. Brands
I have come to find the author reliable and relatable. I would have enjoyed if he had narrated the audiobook, because his enthusiasm for history comes out in his delivery.
There have been many books about the relationships between the founding fathers. What makes this book unique is that a great deal of quotations from the subject’s correspondence are used. Not without explanation, so it is useful.
The use of these quotations forces the listener/reader to slow down and almost interpret their words into modern vernacular.
An example is Hamilton’s public apology for his sex scandal. He very eloquently goes to great length to explain that he thought with the wrong head and was taken in by the badger game. He explains about his suffering wife and how he did not use public funds to pay the blackmail money.
Initially this verbosity makes one think, could you just tell me what happened in plain English?
However… you quickly realize if you slow down and analyze, you’re actually taking a breath and enjoying taking a little time, growing to know the founders better.
H.W. Brands
I have come to find the author reliable and relatable. I would have enjoyed if he had narrated the audiobook, because his enthusiasm for history comes out in his delivery.
There have been many books about the relationships between the founding fathers. What makes this book unique is that a great deal of quotations from the subject’s correspondence are used. Not without explanation, so it is useful.
The use of these quotations forces the listener/reader to slow down and almost interpret their words into modern vernacular.
An example is Hamilton’s public apology for his sex scandal. He very eloquently goes to great length to explain that he thought with the wrong head and was taken in by the badger game. He explains about his suffering wife and how he did not use public funds to pay the blackmail money.
Initially this verbosity makes one think, could you just tell me what happened in plain English?
However… you quickly realize if you slow down and analyze, you’re actually taking a breath and enjoying taking a little time, growing to know the founders better.
May 13, 2024
I love Dr Brands and still fondly remember his History of American Foreign Policy class 20+ years later. And this book was consistently interesting, detailing the various controversies of the ratification of the Constitution and the first three presidencies.
What was odd was the format: it is nearly entirely quotes from the principals. There is no analysis, no clear theme (the title and focus on partisanship feels like an add-on after the book was written), and not even a clear introduction to the topic.
What was odd was the format: it is nearly entirely quotes from the principals. There is no analysis, no clear theme (the title and focus on partisanship feels like an add-on after the book was written), and not even a clear introduction to the topic.
June 25, 2024
Don't get me wrong, I love a nerdy book about American history. This was just real dry with a LOT of quotes from actual letters. So on the one hand I enjoyed reading Hamilton's and Madison's actual words but they were often tedious to decipher. Listening to them via audiobook improved this book.
This is a DEEP dive into Washington and Adam's presidencies if that's your jam.
This is a DEEP dive into Washington and Adam's presidencies if that's your jam.
December 10, 2023
Dr. Brands produces another masterpiece...the man continues his standing as an incomparable storyteller...
July 25, 2024
a thorough detailing of the founding characters and the incredible tale of how the united states was born! 🇺🇸🩵
January 9, 2024
H.W. Brands is one of those popular historians who has a true gift for narrative history and for letting the people of the past speak for themselves. In his newest book, Founding Partisans: Hamilton, Madison, Jefferson, Adams and the Brawling Birth of American Politics, he brings these skills to bear on one of the most pivotal and influential periods of American history. In this book we get a close-up look at the many debates that convulsed the early days of the republic, when individuals like James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, Alexander Hamilton, and many others engaged in rancorous disagreements as they tried to direct the course of the fledgling nation.
Discussions about the rancor and corrosive influence of partisanship are everywhere these days, and it’s easy to see why. Ours is a very divided country, one in which every issue, no matter how large or small, is seemingly filtered through the lens of one’s partisan affiliations. Yet, as Brands repeatedly demonstrates in his book, ‘twas always so, as far back as the days of the Revolution itself. For all that men like Washington and Madison deplored the rise of political parties and saw it as a sign of political decadence–something more suited to the dissolute monarchies and failed republics of Europe than the new country they sought to bring into being.
Of course, many of the great debates of the age centered on various domestic policies, particularly focused on just what the new nation would look like. As soon as it became clear that the Articles of Confederation just weren’t going to work, a whole new set of debates took shape as the Founders grappled with what a new Constitution should look like. It’s really quite fascinating to see how so many of the elements of our government that we take for granted now–up to and including the Bill of Rights itself–were subjects of fierce debate and disagreement among the Framers.
It wasn’t long before parties were taking shape around two of the leading intellectual lights of the age. On the Federalist side there was Alexander Hamilton, a man who never encountered a battle or a conflict that he didn’t feel the need to participate in. On the other there was Thomas Jefferson, who was very wary of federal overreach, which led him to be particularly skeptical (and often downright hostile) to such institutions as the national bank, which was a particular pet project of Hamilton’s. For a time George Washington was able to keep the excesses of the two groups in check, due in large part to the esteem in which he was held by both his cabinet and the country as a whole. When he declined to run for a third time and John Adams was elected, however, things continued to get ever stickier.
Brands rightly points out that this was also an era in which the parties used newspapers as proxies in their battles with one another. Unsurprisingly, the more unscrupulous members of the press were quite willing to use personal scandal to tar their enemies, as the unfortunate incident between Alexander Hamilton and the Reynolds make clear. Jefferson wasn’t exempt from this either, as his dalliance with Sally Hemmings was alluded to, though it failed to become as much of a sensation as Hamilton’s affair (largely because he, wisely, knew when to keep silent).
Nor were the parties’ differences limited to domestic policies, and perhaps no foreign issue excited both sides as much as the French Revolution. For the Federalists, the excesses of the Jacobins were the perfect exemplar of their fears of the people. How could people be trusted to rule themselves, men like Hamilton argued, when this was the result? For Republicans like Jefferson, however, the shedding of innocent blood, while obviously regrettable and to be avoided at all costs, was sometimes necessary in the pursuit of a more perfect republic.
As he has with many of his other works, Brands lets the men of the age do most of the talking, and he includes long passages from individuals like Adams, Jefferson, Hamilton, and others. In letters and speeches, we hear their words as they spoke (or wrote) them, and this gives us unique insight into their motivations and how they conceived of both themselves and their identities as political actors. Whether it’s the sometimes acidic self-pity of Adams or the overwrought rhetoric of Hamilton or the high-flown (and possibly feigned) idealism of Jefferson, these are words which echo through into our own era.
Overall, I very much enjoyed Founding Partisans. Brands is one of those popular historians who never sacrifices rigor for accessibility, and though there are times when it can be a bit tough wading through the sometimes strangled prose of 18th century politicians. However, the advantage of including so many quotes from actual sources is that it gives us in the present a real sense of the flavor of the rhetoric of the past. Language and rhetoric are windows into the soul of an age, and Brands deserves a great deal of credit for leaning so heavily on his sources.
More importantly, this book gives us a deep history of the phenomenon of political parties. For better and worse, they have been a part of American political life since the beginning of our republic. And, while it is tempting to see partisan rancor in the present as new, Founding Partisans reminds us that this, too, has deep antecedents. America was forged in tumult and trial and difficulty, and somehow it always managed to emerge the better for it. Thus, while it can be easy to give in to despair and apathy, to think that there is no way out of our morass, it’s helpful to look back at the past for at least some measure of guidance. While the friendship between Adams and Jefferson wasn’t perfect, it nevertheless demonstrates the extent to which it remains possible for even the most inveterate of political foes to one day find a way back to fondness.
Let us hope that what was true for two men of the past may yet be true, to some extent at least, for those of us in the present.
Discussions about the rancor and corrosive influence of partisanship are everywhere these days, and it’s easy to see why. Ours is a very divided country, one in which every issue, no matter how large or small, is seemingly filtered through the lens of one’s partisan affiliations. Yet, as Brands repeatedly demonstrates in his book, ‘twas always so, as far back as the days of the Revolution itself. For all that men like Washington and Madison deplored the rise of political parties and saw it as a sign of political decadence–something more suited to the dissolute monarchies and failed republics of Europe than the new country they sought to bring into being.
Of course, many of the great debates of the age centered on various domestic policies, particularly focused on just what the new nation would look like. As soon as it became clear that the Articles of Confederation just weren’t going to work, a whole new set of debates took shape as the Founders grappled with what a new Constitution should look like. It’s really quite fascinating to see how so many of the elements of our government that we take for granted now–up to and including the Bill of Rights itself–were subjects of fierce debate and disagreement among the Framers.
It wasn’t long before parties were taking shape around two of the leading intellectual lights of the age. On the Federalist side there was Alexander Hamilton, a man who never encountered a battle or a conflict that he didn’t feel the need to participate in. On the other there was Thomas Jefferson, who was very wary of federal overreach, which led him to be particularly skeptical (and often downright hostile) to such institutions as the national bank, which was a particular pet project of Hamilton’s. For a time George Washington was able to keep the excesses of the two groups in check, due in large part to the esteem in which he was held by both his cabinet and the country as a whole. When he declined to run for a third time and John Adams was elected, however, things continued to get ever stickier.
Brands rightly points out that this was also an era in which the parties used newspapers as proxies in their battles with one another. Unsurprisingly, the more unscrupulous members of the press were quite willing to use personal scandal to tar their enemies, as the unfortunate incident between Alexander Hamilton and the Reynolds make clear. Jefferson wasn’t exempt from this either, as his dalliance with Sally Hemmings was alluded to, though it failed to become as much of a sensation as Hamilton’s affair (largely because he, wisely, knew when to keep silent).
Nor were the parties’ differences limited to domestic policies, and perhaps no foreign issue excited both sides as much as the French Revolution. For the Federalists, the excesses of the Jacobins were the perfect exemplar of their fears of the people. How could people be trusted to rule themselves, men like Hamilton argued, when this was the result? For Republicans like Jefferson, however, the shedding of innocent blood, while obviously regrettable and to be avoided at all costs, was sometimes necessary in the pursuit of a more perfect republic.
As he has with many of his other works, Brands lets the men of the age do most of the talking, and he includes long passages from individuals like Adams, Jefferson, Hamilton, and others. In letters and speeches, we hear their words as they spoke (or wrote) them, and this gives us unique insight into their motivations and how they conceived of both themselves and their identities as political actors. Whether it’s the sometimes acidic self-pity of Adams or the overwrought rhetoric of Hamilton or the high-flown (and possibly feigned) idealism of Jefferson, these are words which echo through into our own era.
Overall, I very much enjoyed Founding Partisans. Brands is one of those popular historians who never sacrifices rigor for accessibility, and though there are times when it can be a bit tough wading through the sometimes strangled prose of 18th century politicians. However, the advantage of including so many quotes from actual sources is that it gives us in the present a real sense of the flavor of the rhetoric of the past. Language and rhetoric are windows into the soul of an age, and Brands deserves a great deal of credit for leaning so heavily on his sources.
More importantly, this book gives us a deep history of the phenomenon of political parties. For better and worse, they have been a part of American political life since the beginning of our republic. And, while it is tempting to see partisan rancor in the present as new, Founding Partisans reminds us that this, too, has deep antecedents. America was forged in tumult and trial and difficulty, and somehow it always managed to emerge the better for it. Thus, while it can be easy to give in to despair and apathy, to think that there is no way out of our morass, it’s helpful to look back at the past for at least some measure of guidance. While the friendship between Adams and Jefferson wasn’t perfect, it nevertheless demonstrates the extent to which it remains possible for even the most inveterate of political foes to one day find a way back to fondness.
Let us hope that what was true for two men of the past may yet be true, to some extent at least, for those of us in the present.
April 26, 2024
A wealth of information on the shaping of political parties. The author draws extensively on writings of the period, so I am constantly entertained by sentences like this one:
“For it certainly is an attempt of a party, which finds they have lost their majority in one branch of the legislature, to make a law by the aid of the other branch and of the Executive, under color of a treaty, which shall bind up the hands of the adverse branch from ever restraining the commerce of their patron nation” – Britain. Jefferson was complaining about the successful campaign by the Federalists to ratify the Jay Treaty with Britain.
Or here where Jefferson speaks about Adams: “Never was a finer canvas presented to work on than our countryman,” he said. “All of them engaged in agriculture or the pursuits of honest industry independent in their circumstances, enlightened as to their rights and firm in their habits of order and obedience to the laws. This I hope will be the age of experiments in government, and that their basis will be founded in principles of honesty, not of mere force.”
Brands draws extensively on the letters and documents of the period, quoting directly from them. He grounds his analysis on these documents, thereby giving the book a richer presentation of his arguments about the shaping of the political parties. I appreciated the fact that he was using, not just Hamilton, Jefferson, Madison, Adams, and Washington, but other writers of the period like Thomas Paine and John Jay. Given the warnings that Madison and others of the founding fathers had foreshadowed about the shaping of political parties, this book was triply interesting to me, as it talked about, in some respects, the inevitability of those political parties.
Washington truly was a reluctant “sovereign.” He had, for example, to be wooed to attend the Philadelphia convention. Madison, for one, realized that Washington’s participation would add irreplaceable legitimacy to the Philadelphia undertaking, and he did everything he could to convince him to come. Knowing for example, that Washington wasn’t adverse to the employment of force when appropriate, he wrote him specifically on that topic. “The right of coercion should be expressly declared,” Madison wrote. “With the resources of commerce in hand, the national administration might always find means of exerting it either by sea or land.”
I had no idea slavery was discussed so intensely and, really, from the beginning. It dominated decisions made on government structure, representation among the states, commerce and trade, etc. Several southern slave-holders, including Washington and Madison hoped that slavery would die out over time. Adams actually favored a tariff on slaves to discourage importation.
Americans of that generation occupied a unique historical moment. Jefferson often harkens back to classical times for context in making his political arguments. “We have seen no instance of this since the days of the Roman republic, nor do we read of any before that. Either force or corruption has been the principle of every modern government…If ever the morals of a people could be made the basis of their own government it is in our case.”
So many wonderful segments; I can’t write them all down: discussion of what to call the executive, foundation of the B.U.S., and Federalist vs. anti-Federalist, particularly Hamilton’s sending Chief Justice Jay to England to negotiate a treaty on trade. Was that a violation of separation of powers? No clear decision at the time. I remember studying the Alien and Sedition Acts in Papa’s class. Here Brand highlights it as a major dispute between the parties.
To me some very interesting disputes over shipping rules that foreshadow the Jones Act and today’s debates over movement of goods out of Ukraine. Jefferson went back to classical times for parallels and emphatically declared that “free bottoms make free goods,” when he spoke of Britain’s declaration declaring ships bound for France to be liable to search and seizure. One article of the order made contraband of such innocuous and previously protected items as corn and flour. Jefferson said, “This article is so manifestly contrary to the law of nations that nothing more would seem necessary, than to observe that it is so. Corn, flour, and meal are not of the class of contraband, and consequently remain articles of free commerce,” he said. Jefferson did acknowledge exemptions for implements of war. The government would not submit to the British policy, and it would not, Jefferson said, “as no nation can subscribe to such pretensions; no nation can agree at the mere will or interest of another, to have its peaceable industry suspended and its citizens reduced to idleness and want.”
Interesting that Jefferson was quite reluctant to run in the campaign after Washington had retired. He did eventually compete in the election against John Adams, but made it clear to his supporters that he really prefer the secondary role of vice president. It was the Alien and Sedition acts that motivated him to have a much more proactive view of the presidency and his fitness for it. In the election campaign of 1800, he was a vigorous campaigner, determined to win the presidency. I did love the tidbits about Hamilton’s dispute with Aaron Burr and how the tie between Jefferson and Burr in 1804 shaped the decision to amend the Constitution to change the way VPs are elected.
Jefferson’s descriptions of how to approach the problem getting the word out to people about the true views of candidates sounds a lot like what’s happening today. Particularly amusing to me were warnings of many correspondents about destroying letters lest they be found later and used against the writers. Good thing so many recipients didn’t do as asked or we would have missed a treasure trove of information about these early thinkers, actors, and governors.
“For it certainly is an attempt of a party, which finds they have lost their majority in one branch of the legislature, to make a law by the aid of the other branch and of the Executive, under color of a treaty, which shall bind up the hands of the adverse branch from ever restraining the commerce of their patron nation” – Britain. Jefferson was complaining about the successful campaign by the Federalists to ratify the Jay Treaty with Britain.
Or here where Jefferson speaks about Adams: “Never was a finer canvas presented to work on than our countryman,” he said. “All of them engaged in agriculture or the pursuits of honest industry independent in their circumstances, enlightened as to their rights and firm in their habits of order and obedience to the laws. This I hope will be the age of experiments in government, and that their basis will be founded in principles of honesty, not of mere force.”
Brands draws extensively on the letters and documents of the period, quoting directly from them. He grounds his analysis on these documents, thereby giving the book a richer presentation of his arguments about the shaping of the political parties. I appreciated the fact that he was using, not just Hamilton, Jefferson, Madison, Adams, and Washington, but other writers of the period like Thomas Paine and John Jay. Given the warnings that Madison and others of the founding fathers had foreshadowed about the shaping of political parties, this book was triply interesting to me, as it talked about, in some respects, the inevitability of those political parties.
Washington truly was a reluctant “sovereign.” He had, for example, to be wooed to attend the Philadelphia convention. Madison, for one, realized that Washington’s participation would add irreplaceable legitimacy to the Philadelphia undertaking, and he did everything he could to convince him to come. Knowing for example, that Washington wasn’t adverse to the employment of force when appropriate, he wrote him specifically on that topic. “The right of coercion should be expressly declared,” Madison wrote. “With the resources of commerce in hand, the national administration might always find means of exerting it either by sea or land.”
I had no idea slavery was discussed so intensely and, really, from the beginning. It dominated decisions made on government structure, representation among the states, commerce and trade, etc. Several southern slave-holders, including Washington and Madison hoped that slavery would die out over time. Adams actually favored a tariff on slaves to discourage importation.
Americans of that generation occupied a unique historical moment. Jefferson often harkens back to classical times for context in making his political arguments. “We have seen no instance of this since the days of the Roman republic, nor do we read of any before that. Either force or corruption has been the principle of every modern government…If ever the morals of a people could be made the basis of their own government it is in our case.”
So many wonderful segments; I can’t write them all down: discussion of what to call the executive, foundation of the B.U.S., and Federalist vs. anti-Federalist, particularly Hamilton’s sending Chief Justice Jay to England to negotiate a treaty on trade. Was that a violation of separation of powers? No clear decision at the time. I remember studying the Alien and Sedition Acts in Papa’s class. Here Brand highlights it as a major dispute between the parties.
To me some very interesting disputes over shipping rules that foreshadow the Jones Act and today’s debates over movement of goods out of Ukraine. Jefferson went back to classical times for parallels and emphatically declared that “free bottoms make free goods,” when he spoke of Britain’s declaration declaring ships bound for France to be liable to search and seizure. One article of the order made contraband of such innocuous and previously protected items as corn and flour. Jefferson said, “This article is so manifestly contrary to the law of nations that nothing more would seem necessary, than to observe that it is so. Corn, flour, and meal are not of the class of contraband, and consequently remain articles of free commerce,” he said. Jefferson did acknowledge exemptions for implements of war. The government would not submit to the British policy, and it would not, Jefferson said, “as no nation can subscribe to such pretensions; no nation can agree at the mere will or interest of another, to have its peaceable industry suspended and its citizens reduced to idleness and want.”
Interesting that Jefferson was quite reluctant to run in the campaign after Washington had retired. He did eventually compete in the election against John Adams, but made it clear to his supporters that he really prefer the secondary role of vice president. It was the Alien and Sedition acts that motivated him to have a much more proactive view of the presidency and his fitness for it. In the election campaign of 1800, he was a vigorous campaigner, determined to win the presidency. I did love the tidbits about Hamilton’s dispute with Aaron Burr and how the tie between Jefferson and Burr in 1804 shaped the decision to amend the Constitution to change the way VPs are elected.
Jefferson’s descriptions of how to approach the problem getting the word out to people about the true views of candidates sounds a lot like what’s happening today. Particularly amusing to me were warnings of many correspondents about destroying letters lest they be found later and used against the writers. Good thing so many recipients didn’t do as asked or we would have missed a treasure trove of information about these early thinkers, actors, and governors.
January 17, 2024
How much you like this book may depend on how much know about American politics and history from the Revolutionary War through the 1800 election. Brands knows his history and is a good writer but this book covers so much including:
1) The challenges and limitations of the Articles of Confederation
2) The effort to get the states to agree to calling a convention to amend them
3) The debates and compromises of the Constitutional Convention
4) The Federalist Papers and the replies to them
5) The state conventions that debated ratification, especially the Virginia convention with Madison and Washington against Patrick Henry and George Mason
6) The divisions within Washington's original cabinet, especially between Jefferson and Hamilton
7) The French Revolution's effect on American politics
8) Washington's retirement and Adams being elected President
9)The Alien and Sedition Acts
10) The rising partisanship leading to the 1800 election and the resulting popular vote
11) The electoral tie between Jefferson and Burr and the long fight after the election was thrown to the House of Representatives, featuring the intrigue of Alexander Hamilton
12) Marbury vs Madison in which John Marshall let Jefferson win the battle but lose the war
The issue is that whole books have been written on just one of the above twelve headings, so if you've read those or read numerous accounts within other books, you aren't going to learn much by reading this. But this is an excellent introduction, an excellent overview
1) The challenges and limitations of the Articles of Confederation
2) The effort to get the states to agree to calling a convention to amend them
3) The debates and compromises of the Constitutional Convention
4) The Federalist Papers and the replies to them
5) The state conventions that debated ratification, especially the Virginia convention with Madison and Washington against Patrick Henry and George Mason
6) The divisions within Washington's original cabinet, especially between Jefferson and Hamilton
7) The French Revolution's effect on American politics
8) Washington's retirement and Adams being elected President
9)The Alien and Sedition Acts
10) The rising partisanship leading to the 1800 election and the resulting popular vote
11) The electoral tie between Jefferson and Burr and the long fight after the election was thrown to the House of Representatives, featuring the intrigue of Alexander Hamilton
12) Marbury vs Madison in which John Marshall let Jefferson win the battle but lose the war
The issue is that whole books have been written on just one of the above twelve headings, so if you've read those or read numerous accounts within other books, you aren't going to learn much by reading this. But this is an excellent introduction, an excellent overview
January 2, 2024
H. W. Brands shatters the myth of harmonious Founding Fathers. Instead, we're thrust into the raucous brawls of America's infancy, where titans like Hamilton, Jefferson, Adams, and Madison clashed over the nation's very soul. Brands skillfully weaves their personal ambitions with ideological battles, portraying not aloof demigods, but passionate, flawed men wrestling with the future of a fledgling republic. The book shines in its vivid imagery. You'll practically smell the printer's ink as pamphlets rain down, feel the tension in hushed Congressional backrooms, and hear the jeers of partisan crowds. Brands' prose is engaging, his wit dry and apt, keeping even the densest political debates palatable. Some may find the lack of new historical revelations a tad underwhelming. But Brands' strength lies in his masterful synthesis, crafting a compelling narrative that exposes the roots of today's partisan gridlock. We see how deeply ingrained our divisions are, born not from recent upheavals, but from the very DNA of American politics. If you crave a nuanced, humanized account of American history, particularly its messy beginnings, "Founding Partisans" delivers. It's a stark reminder that while our political battles may change form, the spirit of contention has been alive and kicking since the first ink splotched on the Constitution. Prepare to be both entertained and sobered by the brawling birth of American democracy.
November 23, 2023
An interesting look at early American politics- Brands does a great job of using the Founding Father's own words to remind us that from the beginning, there have been serious questions between Americans about how they planned on running the country. Things were a lot more divided after the Revolutionary War than we might have realized and here Brands shows the development of differing political parties almost from day one. I was interested to see some of the early things they had to develop (and the different plans they thought about and rejected) for how to form governments, what role a Federal government should play vs state governments, etc. There was some explanation of the compromise that led to the Electoral College we still use for presidential elections, though I wish the explanation had been a little clearer.
The book was a little mixed for me. In some sections Brands gets super detailed and into the weeds on subjects that I'm not sure he needed to (Hamilton's banking schemes for instance). Then he'd talk about states choosing the president and be very brief about it. I think someone more heavily interested in early American history would enjoy the book more than I did, but the denseness made this one drag a bit for me. Still, a timely topic, even though I felt like I had to work for it.
I received an ARC from NetGalley in exchange for an honest review
The book was a little mixed for me. In some sections Brands gets super detailed and into the weeds on subjects that I'm not sure he needed to (Hamilton's banking schemes for instance). Then he'd talk about states choosing the president and be very brief about it. I think someone more heavily interested in early American history would enjoy the book more than I did, but the denseness made this one drag a bit for me. Still, a timely topic, even though I felt like I had to work for it.
I received an ARC from NetGalley in exchange for an honest review
January 31, 2024
H.W. Brands most recent book looks at the partisan divide among our early founders which primarily focuses on Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, and John Adams.
Once allies, these men eventually debated, fought, and in some cases stabbed each other in the back over issues facing the early republic. The primary issue was the power of the Federal Government vs the power of the states.
None of the founders ever wanted competing parties, but by George Washington's second term, that is what they got.
Brands book seems apropos considering the issues we are facing today, and the upcoming Presidential election. The difference in today vs the early republic, most of these men were patriots, and no matter the issue, they ultimately did what they thought was best for the future of the country. One of the examples Brand uses is the election of 1800. After a contentious election that went the House of Representatives, Adams peacefully transferred power to Jefferson. The first big Constitutional test.
Brands book may not for the casual history reader, but certainly for anyone who takes interest in the early republic.
Once allies, these men eventually debated, fought, and in some cases stabbed each other in the back over issues facing the early republic. The primary issue was the power of the Federal Government vs the power of the states.
None of the founders ever wanted competing parties, but by George Washington's second term, that is what they got.
Brands book seems apropos considering the issues we are facing today, and the upcoming Presidential election. The difference in today vs the early republic, most of these men were patriots, and no matter the issue, they ultimately did what they thought was best for the future of the country. One of the examples Brand uses is the election of 1800. After a contentious election that went the House of Representatives, Adams peacefully transferred power to Jefferson. The first big Constitutional test.
Brands book may not for the casual history reader, but certainly for anyone who takes interest in the early republic.
March 2, 2024
An incredible history of American politics, and the four titanic men who shaped the majority of them, from 1778 to 1800. This book enriched many of my foundational beliefs about American politics, including these two: it showed me the reality of the Constitutional Convention as a difficult struggle between brilliant men who compromised in ways both wise and foolish, and the nature of American political conflict as something which has always appeared existential (and been framed by its partisans as such), but which has also always been restrained by the peaceful transfer of power.
H.W. Brands does an incredible job of framing and explaining the primary-source documents he quotes, without shrinking from giving the reader the full experience of hundreds of pages of letters, speeches, and newspaper articles written by the chief actors of the period. The historiographic technique on display in this book is nothing short of masterful.
Highly, highly recommend: this book will not only enlarge your vocabulary, but will change the way you understand American politics past and present.
H.W. Brands does an incredible job of framing and explaining the primary-source documents he quotes, without shrinking from giving the reader the full experience of hundreds of pages of letters, speeches, and newspaper articles written by the chief actors of the period. The historiographic technique on display in this book is nothing short of masterful.
Highly, highly recommend: this book will not only enlarge your vocabulary, but will change the way you understand American politics past and present.
July 16, 2024
I read this for book club.
I must admit that this was a difficult read for many reasons. The book is very dense with quotation and it is main way that information is conveyed. It’s an appropriate strategy for a nonfiction account, but the flowery language of the people of the late 18th century very quickly bogs you down and the author offers no repose outside of the quotes. Outside of the literary style, the actual content is so heavy when you compare it to our current political climate. Often I wanted to stick my fingers in my eye sockets and tear my head apart seeing all the stupid infighting. Hamilton being slain was mentioned in such an offhanded manner when I wish it was given a little more gravitas, given his role in all this. The author supposes that you have a decent background in the material, and while I felt this book helped to cement some of the fleeting memories I retained from my high school US history class, I was often confused by many of the geopolitical conflicts mentioned that I was assumed to be familiar with. But, I do love it when bitches fight.
I must admit that this was a difficult read for many reasons. The book is very dense with quotation and it is main way that information is conveyed. It’s an appropriate strategy for a nonfiction account, but the flowery language of the people of the late 18th century very quickly bogs you down and the author offers no repose outside of the quotes. Outside of the literary style, the actual content is so heavy when you compare it to our current political climate. Often I wanted to stick my fingers in my eye sockets and tear my head apart seeing all the stupid infighting. Hamilton being slain was mentioned in such an offhanded manner when I wish it was given a little more gravitas, given his role in all this. The author supposes that you have a decent background in the material, and while I felt this book helped to cement some of the fleeting memories I retained from my high school US history class, I was often confused by many of the geopolitical conflicts mentioned that I was assumed to be familiar with. But, I do love it when bitches fight.
March 22, 2024
For those of us who have spent lots of time reading about and studying the early years of the American Republic, Brands's latest book does not offer anything new about the chief events of those fateful years. But, it does offer a new perspective. Brands presents these familiar events, from the Constitutional Convention of 1787 to the transformational presidential election of 1800, through the lens of the ugly battles between the Federalists and Republicans. Even better, he does so with the principals' own words in letters, polemics, newspaper articles and records of backroom conversations. When you finish the book, you're left with the notion that if America managed to survive the ambitions, anger, lies and connivances of men like Hamilton, Jefferson, Madison and Adams, perhaps there is still hope that--as for Adams and Jefferson in their golden years-- there is a road to reconciliation even today.
November 16, 2023
Brands does a wonderful job of tying together the different perspectives of the Founding Fathers, principally Hamilton, Jefferson, Madison and Adams, in the process skewering any idea that there was some kind of easy consensus among them, even after the Constitution had been ratified. Hamilton comes off as brilliant but incredibly self-centered and scheming, Jefferson as erudite but naive, Adams as quarrelsome and misanthropic, Madison as more of a cipher. At various points I found myself feeling sympathy and repulsion for all of these men. We are to this day fighting many of the same political and philosophical battles they waged back then. A book that really puts some meat on the bones of these iconic figures and makes you think differently about the birth of the USA and the ideas that underly it.
January 8, 2024
(Audiobook) A solid, if not spectacular, work about how the earliest partisan divisions took hold in American politics. Covering the period from the end of the Articles of Confederation to the deaths of Adams, Jefferson and Madison, Brandis offers a synthesis of mostly known actions from American politics, noting that partisanship, while it was a goal of the founders to try to avoid, ended up defining early American politics. From the divides between those wanting the Articles of Confederation to those supporting the Constitution to the Federalists/Republican slugfests, this mainly shows that the partisanship of today is not that much different from the partisanship of the past. Not a lot new here, but maybe for those not as well schooled in US history, they will get the most out of it. Not a bad read, but probably not one to dwell on afterwards.
February 27, 2024
Historian H.W.Brands latest: Founding Partisans retells the early factionalism of the American Republic and its evolution to political parties. The dichotomies between Federalists and Antifederalists , subsequently Democrats and Whigs, were fierce and bare-knuckled. Personal assaults, raw power plays, scandals and conspiracy theories dominated the era from the Revolutionary War through Madison’s presidency. Few left the arena happy men. Ambition rarely does. Hamilton is bested by the Republicans tide, Adams leaves office defeated and dyspeptic. Washington is left licking personal wounds and Jefferson and Madison retire to their books and plantations. They remade the world but often felt pessimistic about their legacies. Their political travails remind us that today’s conflicts evoke theirs.
March 17, 2024
I can recall writing history papers in college that sometimes did not meet the minimum page requirements of the assignment. So in my later drafts I would add extra (and often unnecessary) primary source citations to meet that requirement.
This book reminds me of my undergraduate practice.
If you love long paragraphs with a primary source quote followed or preceded by a one or two sentence analysis, then you will love Founding Partisans.
This is a historical examination of the passage of the Constitution, and its early tests during the terms of our two Federalist presidents, Washington and Adams. There have been many books written on the subject. Brands’ perspective is to look at the letters and written documents by the major players of the period, including Hamilton, Madison, and Jefferson.
This book reminds me of my undergraduate practice.
If you love long paragraphs with a primary source quote followed or preceded by a one or two sentence analysis, then you will love Founding Partisans.
This is a historical examination of the passage of the Constitution, and its early tests during the terms of our two Federalist presidents, Washington and Adams. There have been many books written on the subject. Brands’ perspective is to look at the letters and written documents by the major players of the period, including Hamilton, Madison, and Jefferson.
July 15, 2024
Double and triple confirmation that US citizens have always been divided over the rightful role of their government - at Executive, Legislative and Judiciary levels.
After the Declaration of Independence, the skirmishes over the Articles of Confederation and the near-combat over the US Constitution, things seemed settled until Washington formed the first Executive branch.
Compromise was largely over and this book well lays out how these arguments proceeded, particularly for the first two post-Washington election cycles. And then on and on, up to present 'peaceful' times.
This is not a typical history treatment. I'd say 80%-90% of the text are quotes from the protagonists. It largely works but it's an English language our ears are not necessarily attuned to.
Mostly works.
After the Declaration of Independence, the skirmishes over the Articles of Confederation and the near-combat over the US Constitution, things seemed settled until Washington formed the first Executive branch.
Compromise was largely over and this book well lays out how these arguments proceeded, particularly for the first two post-Washington election cycles. And then on and on, up to present 'peaceful' times.
This is not a typical history treatment. I'd say 80%-90% of the text are quotes from the protagonists. It largely works but it's an English language our ears are not necessarily attuned to.
Mostly works.
January 11, 2024
I like Brands as an historian and author. His book is an easily understandable look at the political founding of our country. One has to remind himself/herself that they accomplished this all while navigating uncharted political waters. I especially enjoyed reading again Jefferson’s inaugural address of 1801. Fascinating stuff. The world’s first peaceful transfer of power reminds me of the time of Nixon’s resignation when power was quietly moved from a disgraced president to a new regime. Those events remind all of us how fortunate we are to live here.
Of note, I found Brand’s excessive use of quotable words clumsy to read. I appreciated, nonetheless, the use of original words to convey those heated arguments of the time.
Of note, I found Brand’s excessive use of quotable words clumsy to read. I appreciated, nonetheless, the use of original words to convey those heated arguments of the time.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 75 reviews