HAMILTON AND JOHN ADAMS

After seeing the great musical Hamilton when it premiered on Disney+ earlier this month I found myself enjoying it immensely.  I thought it would be fun to do a short compare and contrast with another great work that I have enjoyed: John Adams.  This was a miniseries that HBO produced and aired in 2008, which like Hamilton was met with rave reviews from critics and was given numerous awards.   

The differences are immediate and visually obvious Hamilton is a stage play while John Adams is mini-series for television.  John Adams has seven episodes each slightly over an hour making the entire project over eight hours long, where Hamilton total run time is two and half hours.  It is true that Hamilton only lived about half as long as John Adams but that the play has less than a third of the time to tell his story.   The star of Hamilton, Lin-Manuel Miranda, also wrote the play, while John Adams starred Paul Giamatti and was written by Kirk Ellis.

David Morse as George Washington in John Adams. 

Then there are the aesthetics.  Hamilton is a musical and it bills itself as “the story of America then told by America of today.” The genre of music is a diverse selection of R &B, soul, hip-hop, and traditional-style show tunes.  The casting of Hamilton is revolutionary diverse with roles of white historical figures going to actors who are people of color.  This is done following the “America then told by America today” standard.  The nation is a much more diverse place then it was in the late 18^th and early 19^th centuries.  Not only has the diversity increased, but as a measure of the country’s progress, the positions people of color now have the opportunity to fill has changed as well.  The play was written and premiered during the presidency of Barrack Obama.   It was a powerful message of inclusion in a narrative where people of color were traditional excluded.   

Christopher Jackson as George Washington in Hamilton. 

John Adams on the other hand is a period piece which does its best to retain an authentic look from the period.  This can be seen from the wardrobe trying to replicate the type of fabrics of the period; to the props trying to insure authentic appearance to the carriages, fire arms, etc; finally to the make-up trying to make the actors look more like the historical figures they are trying to represent.  In short, their set tries to re-create the world as it existed in the late 18^th century.

Daveed Diggs as Thomas Jefferson in Hamilton. 

Now we come to the similarities.  Both works are based on a life of an American Founding Father.  Both works are closely based on popularly written biographies about those founders.  John Adams was based on David McCullough’s 2001 biography of the same name, while Hamilton was based on Ron Chernow’s 2004 biography titled Alexander Hamilton. 

Stephen Dillane as Thomas Jefferson in John Adams. 

The most important similarity between the two works (and if you take anything away from this review let be this) is while the settings of these works are the American Revolution and the establishment of the U.S. Constitution these events are not what either is about.   Both are about its principal subject be it Alexander Hamilton or John Adams.  Every event we witness and every other historical figure we meet is based on what the subject perceived.  However when one glances back with that in mind it again brings us to important distinctions in each work. 

In John Adams the American Revolution is a gruesome and undesirable necessity carried out in order to defend the rights of the colonists as citizens, because that is what the Revolution was to Mr. Adams.  In Hamilton, the American Revolution is exciting and wonderful opportunity for talented people born without high privilege to “rise up” and above their station.  This is because that is what Revolution meant to Alexander Hamilton.   Hamilton presents George Washington as this courageous general who doubles as a father figure, because that is who he was to fatherless Alexander Hamilton.  While the John Adams George Washington is a noble, stoic, and often distant figure because that is how he appeared to Adams.     

Then there is Thomas Jefferson.  The Thomas Jefferson of Hamilton comes off as the villain of the piece.  Easily one of the most enjoyable characters of the play Jefferson is exciting to watch and he is foil to poor Mr. Hamilton in every instance of the play’s second act. Again, this is who Jefferson was to Alexander Hamilton, so they play presents him as such.  In John Adams, Jefferson is often quiet and self-conscious, Adams is one of those who help him find his voice.  He recruits him to write the Declaration of Independence.  Once Jefferson has his voice and once America becomes a nation complete with a new Constitution the two friends become rivals.  The relationship of Adams and Jefferson as one-time friends who turn on each other mirrors the relationship between Hamilton and Burr in the play, except for that disastrous ending. 

Speaking of Burr, he had no role in the HBO miniseries.  Not only was Aaron Burr absent but James Madison, the Father of the Constitution, is mentioned only in passing.  This has little to do with the historic importance rather their impact on the life of John Adams in comparison with other figures.  Likewise the play Hamilton does not include the John Hancock, Samuel Adams (mentioned only as the name of a drink) and most importantly does not have a character of Benjamin Franklin.  This is not an over-site of Lin-Manuel Miranda just a reflection of those historical figures impact on Alexander Hamilton.

What is most interesting is how Adams and Hamilton are presented in each other’s drama.  In Hamilton Adams never makes an appearance, but he comes up in discussion and song a number of times.  He first mentioned by Eliza as she tries to get her husband to come out to the country pointing out that Adams does this for his wife.  To which Hamilton responds that, as Vice President, Adams does not have a real job.  Later after Adams becomes President, Jefferson and Madison are discussing how he and Hamilton had a fall out leading to Adams dismissing Hamilton and Hamilton coming out and publicly attacking the leader of his own party.  This damages the Federalists so badly that it practically hands the election to the Democratic-Republicans.  After Jefferson and Madison are done talking it over the audience sees Hamilton from the raised flat of the stage and dropping a book down to the floor shouting John Adams name.

Rufus Sewell as Alexander Hamilton in John Adams

In John Adams, Hamilton as a character appears in two episodes.  His first appearance is in the fifth episode “Unite or Die.” In this episode Hamilton appears at an early meeting of George Washington’s cabinet.  During the meeting he basically schools Thomas Jefferson on economics and lays out plans to set up a National Bank and assume the states’ debts.  This of course laid the ground work for stability of the United States Government.  A success from the Washington Administration that when Jefferson became President in 1801 he found that messing with it would be detrimental to the Union.  Hamilton’s second appearance is in the sixth episode “Unnecessary War” in which shows the clash between Adams/Hamilton more sympathetically to Adams.  Their fallout shows a Hamilton who has bitten off more than he can chew and needs Adams to bring him back to reality.

In closing I highly enjoyed both works and would encourage anyone to watch them.  Just remember when doing so with each presentation you are learning about a great historical figure who existed in an extraordinary setting of the American Revolution.  The setting and the characters in it are seen only from the view of the main character.  This is not to say you might not learn a thing or two about these periods but just keep in mind how it is slanted.                  

AUTHOR OF THE DECLARATION

A review of Willard Sterne Randall’s Thomas Jefferson: A Life (1993)

(Rating 4 of 5)

 

Willard Randall’s take on the life of Thomas Jefferson is worth reading.  The strength of the book comes from his coverage of Jefferson’s developmental years.  The later part of his life is glossed over rather quickly.  For example there is only one chapter covering his two-term, and rather eventful, presidency.  So this book is good for what drove President Jefferson and what events contributed to his personality but not very useful when covering his presidency.  That is not necessarily a bad thing when you consider that Jefferson’s time as the President of United States is well covered by other historians, but it is worth noting.  

            One of things I learned in this book that I like about Jefferson was his resistance to adopt any one political ideology or philosophy.  The book shows Jefferson referring to the adoption of a philosophy to fitting your mind in a prism that limits the way you view the world.  That part really spoke to me because that is how I view things as well; I always dislike trying to label myself with any word to describe me and how I think.  Randall does a good job showing where Jefferson gets his ideas and beliefs.  

 

“It is not from the Scottish religious reformers but from English and European writers of the seventeenth- and eighteenth-century Age of Reason that Jefferson drew his evolving notions of government.  From Bacon, the grandfather of the English Enlightenment, Jefferson had learned to use his powers of observation and question any opinion, regardless of its source.  He adhered to Bacon’s admonition to apply reason and learning to the functions of government to improve society.  Jefferson was influenced by Newton’s Principia, which held that the universe was a great clock invented, made, and set in motion by a deity, but he had adapted Newton’s view to his own quest for a world of order and harmony.  Like Newton, Jefferson did not believe in miracles.  Jefferson’s third hero from the time of boyhood studies was Locke, who had joined the empiricism of Bacon and Newton to the realm of politics.  Locke’s An Essay Conserving Human Understanding for the first time fed his natural optimism and gave him hope mankind could be improved by education.  From Locke and Scottish adherents, Jefferson had adopted the theory of the Second Treatise of Government that legitimate authority to govern was derived from the consent of the governed, which had first been granted while mankind had still been in a ‘state of nature’ when all human beings were by right free and equal.  Locke underpinned all of Jefferson’s political thought.” (p.205)

            There is great deal of information of Jefferson’s career in the Continental Congress, his horrendous stint of Governor of Virginia, and his time abroad negotiating on America’s behalf in Europe.  Jefferson considered his authorship of the Declaration to be one of the finest moments of his personal career, although he did not think so at the time.

“The debate was one of the more painful ordeals of Jefferson’s long political career.   He sat there, beside Franklin, silent in his humiliation at the number, extent, and importance of the changes.  He mostly maintained this silence for years, but what little he wrote indicates his mounting disgust at the timidity of the conservatives in Congress, their slashing deletions of at least two major clauses in Jefferson’s draft declaration.”

           

On Sally Hemings Randall could not have been more off.  Although it is sometimes hard to separate fact from fiction, Randall does do a good job correcting the lies of James Callender the propagandist, and some of the unhistorical flaws of the work of Fawn M. Brodie.  However he was clearly wrong about the final conclusion.  

“Sally Hemings’s lover was, in other words, a son of Dabney Carr and Jefferson’s sister Martha.  It is impossible to believe that Jefferson abandoned his love for Maria Cosway to force his affections on even the most beautiful adolescent girl.” (p.477)

            I bet that statement is a little embarrassing now!  DNA reveled in 1998 that Jefferson was the father of Sally Hemings’ kids.  So, on this issue, he is definitely wrong. 

            In America over the last seventy years there has been a great deal of debate over the Executive Branch’s use of military force without the consent of the Congress.  Many who feel offended by all such actions often cite the founders and the U.S. Constitution.  However if one looks at what the Founders themselves did when managing the government of the Constitution, and they might find themselves coming to a far different conclusion. A good example is Jefferson’s actions against the pirates.

“At the first full cabinet meeting on May 15, President Jefferson confronted his first foreign policy crisis, one he had tackled first as minister to France fifteen years earlier.  Tripoli had attacked American ships in the Mediterranean.  Putting into effect his long-held views on the subject, Jefferson had already assembled an American naval squadron at Norfolk that was ready to sail.  An American navy sailing off Tripoli, he told his cabinet, ‘might lead to war.’  He wanted his cabinet’s opinions and approval.  All five members agreed on sending the squadron but disagreed over Jefferson’s authority to act while Congress was adjourned.  Navy Secretary Smith and Treasury Secretary Gallatin backed Jefferson’s position that the president could use military force to defend the United States, but Attorney General Lincoln argued that without a formal declaration of war by Congress, American warships could destroy North African pirates wherever they could be found.” (p.549) 

Thomas Jefferson: A Life is good book about a very complicated figure.  James Madison once warned people who study Jefferson to be ready for a great deal of twists and turns when going through his mind.  Randall acts as fairly good guide. 

{Video is taken from the HBO John Adams series}

THE CHAMPION OF INDEPENDENCE

A review of David McCullough’s John Adams (2001)

(Rating: 5 of 5)

It has been a few years since I first read John Adams.  I decided to re-read the book for the purpose of reviewing it.  McCullough’s work as an author is a testament that history does not have to be boring.  When one thinks of all the titans of this era, in some ways Mr. Adams comes up a little short.  Regulated to history as ‘number 2’ the one-term president who follows George Washington and who precedes Thomas Jefferson, John Adams is not typically thought of as the most interesting of the founders.  That was until 2001, when McCullough wrote this stunning book about a man whom without there may not have been a United States of America.

Young Abigail and John Adams

            McCullough traces John Adams time as a young lawyer who is a loyal subject of the British Empire.  After the abuses to what Adams believes are the rightful liberties of British subjects that the colonists are entitled, he would go to Congress and take up the cause of independence.  His performance at the Congress was second to none.  It was John Adams that nominated George Washington to command the continental army.  It was Adams, who with Jefferson and Franklin, would bring the Congress around to declaring the nation’s independence from the British crown.  McCullough also shows how it was not as neat in tidy as in the classic paintings.  In fact, the Founding Fathers themselves contributed to that misconception.
                

“In later years, Jefferson would entertain guests at Monticello with descriptions of black flies that so tormented the delegates, biting through their silk hose that they had hurried the signing along as swiftly as possible.  But at the time Jefferson wrote nothing of the occasion, not did John Adams.  In old age, trying to reconstruct events of that crowed summer, both men would stubbornly and incorrectly insist that the signing took place of July 4.” (p.138)

Franklin, Adams, and Jefferson

            After securing the nation’s independence Adams spends a great deal of time abroad in foreign courts trying to win over allies to the American cause.  In this he often becomes loggerheads with Ben Franklin.  Adams was one of the diplomats who help negotiate the Treaty of Paris (1783) where American independence was recognized by the British Empire.  He would be the first American to represent his country in the Court of St. James.  Adams found he rather liked King George III, all things considered, and McCullough points out the two men had a great deal in common.
 

“His Majesty the King of England and the new American minister to the Court of St. James’s were not without common interests and notable similarities.  Like John Adams, King George III was devoted to farming.  Seldom was His Majesty happier than when inspecting his farms, or talking crops and Merino sheep with his farm workers at Windsor.  Like Adams, the King had a passion for books.  The difference, as with the farming, was mainly a matter of scale.  His private library was one of the treasures of Britain.  During Adams’s earlier stay in London, the American painter Benjamin West had arranged a tour of the royal quarters at Buckingham House, and for Adams the high point had been seeing the King’s library.  He wished he could stay a week, Adams had said.” (p.333)

Mr. Adams meets the King

            A good deal of the book is dedicated to Adams relationship with his children, his daughter ‘Nabby’ (Young Abigail), his future president son John Quincy, and his other two useless sons, Charles and Thomas.  Most important however is the relationship with his life partner, Abigail.  America clearly has many Founding Fathers, if it were to have any Founding Mothers Abigail Adams would certainly be a strong candidate for the title.  In many ways she was her husband’s superior especially where money was concerned.  Jefferson pointed out the reason Adams was better off than he was financially, is because of Mrs. Adams running of their family finances.
  

“As she predicted, the bill for the Bank of the United States passed by a sizable majority, despite opposition from Madison and Jefferson, who urged the President to exercise a veto on constitutional grounds.  But Hamilton’s views carried greater weight with Washington, who signed the bill on February 25.

            Better versed on financial matters than her husband, Abigail wanted to invest immediately in government securities, but as she told Cotton Tufts, ‘Mr. Adams held to his faith in land as true wealth.’” (p.428)

            When Adams returned from Europe he was elected Vice President of the United States.  The first to hold this office, the record that Adams would set tie breaking votes he would cast as President of the Senate is a record that still stands to this day.  In 1796, he would go on to win the first contested presidential election in U.S. history.  As the first president ever to succeed a president he had no history to turn to.  He kept Washington’s entire cabinet that was loyal to Hamilton, instead of him, in office.  Adams would still manage to keep this country away from war with France and do so with America’s honor intact.  Yet he would lose the election of 1800.

“What was surprising—and would largely be forgotten as time went on—was how well Adams had done.  Despite the malicious attacks on him, the furor over the Alien and Sedition Acts, unpopular taxes, betrayals by his own cabinet, the disarray of the Federalists, and the final treachery of Hamilton, he had, in fact, come very close to winning in the electoral count.  With a difference of only 250 votes in New York City, Adams would have won with an electoral count of 71 to 61.  So another of the ironies of 1800 was that Jefferson, the apostle of agrarian America who loathed cities, owed his ultimate political triumph to New York.” (p.556)

            In his final public act he would choose John Marshall as Chief Justice of the United States.  As the famous scene played out Adams asked Marshall who he should appoint.  Marshall in response says he does not know.  Adams responds with ‘I think I will appoint you'.

“But it is probable that Adams knew exactly whom he would choose before Marshall even entered the room.  In many ways the nomination was inevitable.  Few men had so impressed Adams as Marshall, with his good sense and ability.  Nor had anyone shown greater loyalty.  He was Adams’s kind of Federalist and one who at forty-five—‘in the full vigor of middle age,’ as Adams said—could be expected to serve on the Court for years to come.  On January 31, 1801, at the President’s House, Adams signed Marshall’s commission as Chief Justice, which the Senate confirmed without delay.  In its far-reaching importance to the country, Adams appointment of Marshall was second only to his nomination of George Washington to command the Continental Army twenty-five years before.  Possibly the greatest Chief Justice in history, Marshall would serve on the Court for another thirty-four years.” (p.560)

John Adams is an incredible book about an incredible man.  McCullough writes in a manner that it is both readable and enjoyable.  The best part is you do not even have to study history on a regular basis to enjoy it.

{Scenes are taking from the HBO John Adams mini-series based on the book}

WE THE PEOPLE…

A review of David O. Stewart’s The Men Who Invented the Constitution: The Summer of 1787 (2007)

 (Rating 5 of 5)

 The Summer of 1787 is master piece. David Stewart takes us to arguably the most important event in U.S. History— the writing of the U.S. Constitution— and places it and a very smooth flowing narrative. Stewart explores the ups and downs of the very hot and often chaotic convention. The great majority of the delegates’ time is focused on representation in the Congress between the ‘big’ vs. ‘small’ states and the slave holding vs. non-slave holding states. The Convention was called for during a time where the states were about to tear their union apart. The recent chaos of Shay’s Rebellion put the need for a stronger federal government front and center.

“Americans needed to think long and hard about what sort of government would preserve their independence and their precious liberties. They needed a government that could hold the states together, develop the huge western territories, and lead Americans to their rightful place in the world. Four months after marched into the mouths of cannon manned by other Americans, the Philadelphia Convention would meet to create that new government. In an act of inspired improvisation, it would produce the world’s longest-running experiment in self-rule, twenty-two decades and counting.”(p.16)

 One of the things that I thought was most interesting about the Convention had to do with the ‘Great Compromise.’ Often when Americans first take a class on Civics in school they learn of the big-state Virginia Plan and the small-state New Jersey Plan and it was ‘the Great Compromise’ that saved everything and kept the delegates together. However in real life Sherman’s proposal—that let the House be decided by population and the states represented in the Senate equally—was proposed really early and voted down. As the debates that kept raging on centered around representation, eventually leading to the proposal of the New Jersey Plan. The introduction of the New Jersey plan to challenge the Virgina plan that the delegates had been working off of as their base idea, forced the delegates to reconsider Sherman’s proposal. One can also imagine vast July heat contributing to some of the decisions in that room.

“The Convention’s secrecy rules worsened the problem, keeping the East Room’s windows and doors firmly closed against eavesdroppers. Delegates gazed longingly though those windows, imagining cool zephyrs that would not be felt to the blessed arrival of quitting time.” (p.82)

Also, I was surprised to learn of how strongly that some of the delegates wanted to make sure power was kept on the east coast. Many delegates felt that if population determined representation then those going out west would one day out vote the Atlantic states in the Congress (as they do). These delegates wanted a provision that would give the Eastern states a permanent majority in the Congress. However the majority at the Convention stood by their republican principles.

 “The principle of equal treatment for new states—embraced unanimously by Congress in New York, and more reluctantly by the Philadelphia Convention—was novel. Beginning with Rome and continuing through Venice, republics had grown by conquest and colonization, but did not extend equal status to their new lands. America would take a very different approach. New states would stand equal to their predecessors. On this issue, Mason, Wilson, and Madison held the delegates to their republican ideals. The former colonials would not become colonizers.” (p.136)

The Men Who Invented the Constitution

The book focuses on some of the lesser-known delegates, such as John Rutledge. Rutledge and his Committee of Detail in the mid-Convention hijacked the Constitution, and tried to put in as many pro-slavery provisions as they could.

 “But they did much more. They added provisions that the Convention never discussed. They changed critical agreements that the delegates had already approved. Spurred by Rutledge, they reconceived the powers of the national government, redefined the powers of the states, and adopted fresh concessions on that most explosive issue, slavery. It is not too much to say that Rutledge and his committee hijacked the Constitution. Then they remade it.” (p.165)

John Rutledge

However theirs was not the last word. When the finally votes were taken many things the Rutledge put in there were taken out. Also the Committee of Style headed by some of George Washington’s close associates such James Madison and Alexander Hamilton would put the Constitution back on a pro-Union track. One member of the Style Committee was James Wilson, the Scottish immigrant who would pen the famous preamble.

James Wilson, author of the Preamble

Alexander Hamilton and James Madison

“The committee’s chairman was a senior, conciliatory figure, Johnson of Connecticut. The other four members, however, were all in their thirties, all unfriendly to state powers, and all from larger, cosmopolitan states. Those looking for the influence of General Washington would note that three were his protégés. Also, all four were brilliant.” (p.230)

 The book closes with a follow up to what the founders were doing in their closing years. It did not end well for all of them. Some of them ended up in debt, murdered, or just plain lonely. Nevertheless their actions would impact the nation would insure their legacies.


 {Video is from the history channel documentary Founding Fathers}

YEAR ONE, REDUX

A review of David McCullough’s 1776: The Illustrated Edition (2007)

 (Rating 5 of 5)

Seeing that I have already reviewed 1776 as a book, I will just make a few passing comments on some of the illustration that graces this edition. This book is full of primary source material. Inside are paintings, copies of letters and publications, and even a photograph.

The paintings are truly remarkable. There was prime talent in the late eighteenth century. Some of the paintings are from the British master Alan Ramsay; including a few of his most famous works such as The Coronation of George III. A great deal of the work of the famous revolutionary painter, John Trumbull, is in here including The Signing of the Declaration,The Crossing of the Delaware, and The Surrender of the Hessians. I, personally, like Trumbull’s work the best.

       (John Trumbull)

        (Alan Ramsay)

 In the book are copies of originals letters, Washington’s commission, maps, and copies of the original publication of George III's pronouncement of rebellion and the Declaration of Independence. People in the eighteenth century spelled differently than we do today with letters ‘s’ and ‘f’ being interchangeable. The different spelling makes the material very difficult to read.

On another note, every year on July 4 our local paper (the Portland Press Herald) decides to publish the Declaration and writes ‘united States of America’ not capitalizing the 'u' because that is what Jefferson had in his original draft. However official published version that was issued by the Continental Congress had an all capitalized ‘UNITED STATES OF AMERICA’ in the document. Jefferson, it should be pointed out, did not capitalize the first letter in his sentences. So we should not overly look into what Jefferson did and did not capitalize.

My favorite thing in this book is a photograph from 1858 of a 102-year-old veteran of the Revolutionary War. Ralph Farnham enlisted at 18 in 1775 and was still around to take a picture in 1858.

(Ralph Farnham, one of the last Revolutionary War veterans alive in 1858.)

I would recommend any U.S. history teacher to get this book for his or her class.

AND NOW WE ARE A NATION

A review of Gordon S. Wood's Empire of Liberty: A History of the Early Republic, 1789-1815 (2009)

Part of the Oxford History of the United States Series

(Rating 5 of 5)

Before I begin I would like to point out that I actually had the opportunity to meet Professor Wood when he was giving a lecture at the University of New England in September 2010. I was very impressed by his presentation and he even signed my copy of Empire of Liberty.

As I continue my march through the ages in which I explore all the historical eras of the United States of America, my journey takes me to the beginning of our modern government. Since I finished Robert Middlekauff's The Glorious Cause, which deals with the American Revolution and the Constitutional Convention, I now arrive as the U.S. Constitution is being implemented and the new government is just getting its metaphorical feet under its legs. As I stated in earlier posts the biggest challenge is to find books that try their best to explore from multiple perspectives to avoid just one narrow view, without at the same time surrendering a general narrative that is both readable and enjoyable. Gordon Wood’s book more than meets those qualifications.

The book begins with a discussion of the Washington Irving story of Rip Van Winkle, a story many us remember from childhood in which a man falls asleep for twenty years. Wood reminds us of political implications of that story. How Van Winkle falls asleep prior to the American Revolution and wakes up in the America of 1790s and marvels how the world has completely changed.

The historical narrative begins as the nation writes and ratifies its new Constitution and concludes at the end of the War of 1812. This book tells the tale of two generations, the Revolutionary generation of the Founding Fathers and the second generation of J.Q. Adams, Henry Clay, and Andrew Jackson. The book in way covers how the Founders governed the country in the early Republic and although the book does not feature the passing the torch from one generation to another , it clearly shows a nation where over eighty percent of its population is under the age of forty. In this narrative a young nation is still trying to find and define itself.


(George Washington as President,this was the painting that Dolly Madison saved from the fire that burnt the White House)

Early on the government under President Washington tries to mimic the British government's success without emulating its traps such as hereditary monarchy and aristocracy. The early administrations of Washington and Adams have a lot of success in helping the government find its feet by making good on treaties, establishing the public credit, kept the nation out of war, and being able to defend itself from internal problems such as the Whiskey Rebellion.

“The Senate considered itself distinctly superior to the 'lower' house, so-called perhaps because the House chamber was on the first floor of Federal Hall, while the Senate chamber was on the second floor. Although the Senate was not entirely clear about its relationship to the various state legislatures, which, of course, were its electors, it certainly did have a very high-flown sense of dignity. While the House was busy passing legislation, establishing revenue for the new government, and erecting the several executive departments, the Senate spent its time discussing ceremonies and rituals, perhaps because it had little else to do.” (p. 63)

The Washington Administration did not really appreciate how bad Hamilton's programs—no matter how successful—would look to members of the public, who are terrified of tyranny, might view a growing executive. They did not care as much as they should because their views on how the Republic was supposed to look was greatly different than others. When the Adams Administration and Congress began to oppress the people's liberty with the Alien and Sedition Acts, the people would find a champion in Thomas Jefferson.


(Thomas Jefferson, champion of the people)

After the election of 1800, the historical narrative stops and Wood takes some time to inspect Jeffersonian America by taking an in-depth look at each area of society, from the west, to the everyday people, the religious establishments, and more. This book gives you the very feel of the nation as it was in the early nineteenth century.


(The Louisiana Purchase)

The book also discusses Jefferson's greatest triumph of his presidency, the Louisiana Purchase and Lewis and Clark Expedition to explore it. Jefferson doubled the size of the nation and unintentionally secured the power of the Federal government of the United States. And while the accomplishments of Presidents Jefferson and Madison were many, they did make a good deal of mistakes such as the Embargo act of 1807 that both devastated the county and forced President Jefferson to take a line with dissenters that would have made Alexander Hamilton proud. They also allowed for ideology to cloud their judgment and lead the nation into a disaster.

“Although the Republicans in the Congress knew that the country's armed forces were not ready for any kind of combat, they nonetheless seemed more concerned about the threat the American military might pose to the United States than to Great Britain.” (p. 671)

(President Madison, great political theorist, but poor commander-in-chief)

The War of 1812 nearly brought America to its knees but critical victories at Baltimore and New Orleans helped rally the American spirit. In the end of the War of 1812, even though the capital had been lost in the fighting American nationalism soared to a new height.

In the end the Founding Fathers that lived the longest seemed to be suffering from a Rip Van Winkle symptom as they could no longer recognize the nation that they had founded forty to fifty years later. This was most true for former President Thomas Jefferson.

“Although the world of the nearly nineteenth century was spinning out of Jefferson's control or even his comprehension, no one had done more to bring it about. It was Jefferson's commitment to liberty and equality that justified and legitimated the many pursuits of happiness that were bringing unprecedented prosperity to so many average white Americans. His Republicans followers in the North had created this new world, and they welcomed and thrived in it. They celebrated Jefferson and equal rights and indeed looked back in awe and wonder at all the Founders and saw in them heroic leaders the likes of which they knew they would never see again in America. Yet they also knew that they lived in a different would that required new thoughts and new behavior.” (p. 736)

On a technical note, like the previous volume of the Oxford series,the footnotes are located at the bottom of the page they are on as opposed to either at the end of the book or the end of each chapter. I find this makes reading the book more enjoyable because that way I do not have to flip though pages to find the source of any particular fact or argument. I say again that I wish this method was mandatory.

Empire of Liberty is for the advanced reader who would like to receive an incredible amount of information about our nation in its earliest stages. I would highly recommend this book to anyone who is open to that challenge.

{Video from HBO's already classic John Adams series and the History Channel documentary First Invasion.}

IT WAS THE GLORIOUS CAUSE

A review of Robert Middlekauff's The Glorious Cause: The American Revolution, 1763-1789 (1982, original) (2005, my copy)

Part of the Oxford History of the United States Series

(Rating 5 of 5)

As I continue my march through the ages, where I explore all the historical eras of the United States of America, I finally arrive at the age and event that would create the nation itself. Having finished Fred Anderson Crucible of War, I had already arrived at that generation of Americans, which we would describe as the Founding generation, and they were living under the man they would call tyrant, King George III. As I stated in an earlier post the biggest challenge in this little project is to find books whose authors try their best to explore from multiple perspectives to avoid just one narrow view, without at the same time surrendering a general narrative that is both readable and enjoyable. I found this book to meet those qualifications.

Robert Middelkauff's brings the conflict that gave birth to the United States of America to life in his classic work, The Glorious Cause. This book tells the story of thirteen colonies who revolted against the mother country of Great Britain to form their own nation. The story begins on the close of the French and Indian War (or Seven Years War) where the British Empire was triumphant,the greatest power of North America, and undisputed ruler of the sea. The story ends with George Washington taking office as the first President of the United States.


(The hated King, George III)

We tend to think of the American Revolution as happening from 1774-1783 but Middelkauff believes that it began in the 1760s. He argues this even though the American disagreement with the mother country during the late 1760s and early 1770s was about their rights as British subjects in the Empire, not trying to break loose from it. He also points out that the Revolution does not end at Yorktown or the Treaty of Paris but with the Constitutional Convention, the Constitution's ratification, and the inauguration of President George Washington.


(Father of his country, General George Washington)


(Washington's trusted second, General Greene)

One of the main sources of disagreement with Great Britain and her colonies was two very different views that were held on the unwritten constitution of the British Empire. One view, held by Americans, was that all British subjects could not be governed and taxed without their consent; and the other, held by many in Britain, was the British Parliament was the supreme legislature of all the inhabitants of the Empire whether or not that community was had representation in the House of Commons. With the insistence of the various ministers of King George III, with His Majesty’s full support, Parliament attempted to level taxes on the colonies. The response from the colonies was resistance from all levels of colonial society.

“A single act of Parliament led by an evil ministry would not immediately fasten chains on colonial wrists, of course. As far as the American writers were concerned, the Stamp Act was simply the visible edge of the dared conspiracy. If the Act were accepted, they asked, what guarantee did the colonists have that their lands, houses, indeed the very windows in their houses, and the air breathed in America would not be taxed? A people virtually represented in Parliament would have no choice once they swallowed that pernicious doctrine which was in reality shackles for the enslaved. And there would be many hungry men in England eager to do the work of the enslavers. Colonial accounts of the conspiracy lingered over long and horrified descriptions of the officeholders, placemen, taskmasters, and pensioners who would descend upon the colonists ostensibly to serve His Majesty but in reality to eat out of the colonial substance. The corruption they would bring would complete the ruin of the colonies.”p.132

(One of the Revolution's most respected leaders, Ben Franklin)

This common cause of liberty was able to unite the colonies as nothing had ever had before; colonial legislatures sent representatives to a Continental Congress that would try to negotiate with Parliament. When negotiations failed and the war came at Lexington and Concord, this Congress would raise and Army and appoint a commander-in-chief. The next Continental Congress, when the time came, would go forth and declare their independence and form a new nation.


(Tom Paine, author of Common Sense)

“What Americans thought and felt about the declaration's 'truths' which are presented as 'self-evident'--that all men 'are endowed by their creator with inalienable rights,' among them 'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness'--is not clear. There was no immediate discussion in public of these claims; nor was there of the contention that all men were 'created equal.' Thomas Jefferson wrote these words and though at the time, and since, no great originality was attributed to them and to the substance of the declaration, the declaration may in fact have possessed more originality than anyone suspected.”p.335

(Thomas Jefferson, primary author of the Declaration of Independence)



One of the great elements of this book is the way it tries to cover all aspects of society, from the court of King George III to the farmers of Massachusetts. The stars of history still get there well-earned due, George Washington makes the most appearances, but also covered are Patrick Henry, Samuel and John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, John Paul Jones, Thomas Paine, Nathanael Greene and, of course, Benjamin Franklin.

“Washington's judgment improved each year, as he assimilated the experience of the war. His confidence in himself also grew as he learned. When the war began he as full of concern that he would fail because his abilities were not of the first order. This belief persisted even though he also felt that he had been called by providence to lead the American army in the Revolution. By the end of 1776 with a year and a half of the war under his belt, and with the success of Trenton and Princeton, he was a much more confident commander. He was not arrogant, and he continued to consult his general officers before he made important decisions, but he no longer took advice against his better judgment, as he had, for example, in the autumn of 1776 on the Hudson.”p.600

After the Revolutionary War comes to an end, the Revolution was still unfinished for a Revolution cannot be complete until something lasting has been built up to replace the old regime. The Articles of Confederation were not up to task and ultimately the Constitutional Convention would have to be held to create a lasting Republic in which the Federal Government was supreme and not the various state governments.



I would also like to point out a technical detail that I like about this book. All the footnotes are located at the bottom of the page they are on as opposed to either at the end of the book or the end of each chapter. I find this makes reading the book more enjoyable because that way I do not have to flip though pages to find the source of any particular fact or argument. I wish this method was mandatory.

The Glorious Cause is an incredible book and I would recommend it to the novice and the experienced historian alike.

{Video is from the History Channel's America: The Story of US and HBO's already classic John Adams series}

THE MOST FAMOUS DOCTRINAIRE

A review of Harry Ammon’s James Monroe: The Quest for National Identity (1971, original) (1991, my copy)

(Rating 4 of 5)

James Monroe, although not our most exciting president, was certainly popular being the last president to run unopposed in the election of 1820. I think there is some debate over whether we can call James Monroe a Founding Father. Although he is certainly of the founding generation, he played only a minor role in founding of the country. He was a company officer in the Army of George Washington, fighting in the famous Battle of Trenton in which Washington and his men crossed the Delaware to surprise the Hessians after Christmas. He was only president to be on the Anti-Federalist side during the ratification debates. Yet, he is also the president responsible for his famous Monroe Doctrine, and the Era of Good Feelings.

Although this book was written in 1971, my copy (paperback) was not produced until 1991. What is very amusing about this, is in the new preface Harry Ammon states in the first paragraph that there is no difference between the two editions, because in the two decades between them no new information has come out about the life of James Monroe. Unlike Jefferson or Lincoln whom how they are presented can vary wildly between each generation that followed them, poor plain James Monroe is that same as he ever was.

The first few chapters focus on Monroe's youth and education, the book follows his brief military career during the Revolutionary War. Monroe earns the rank of colonel, and recommend by Washington to lead a regiment but the war ends before Monroe's regiment can be raised. Monroe would go on to serve in the Virginia House of Delegates, and then into the Congress of the Confederation. After the Constitutional Convention wrote a new constitution for the nation to be presented for ratification, Monroe would take the side of the Anti-Federalists in those debates, despite later becoming a strong supporter of the U.S. Constitution.

Monroe would try to be elected to First Congress but he would lose to another famous Virginian named James Madison. In 1790, he would earn a seat in the United States Senate; there he would act as a member of the opposition, but in 1794 he was appointed by President Washington to serve as Minster to France. As a foreign minister, he would act in the exact opposite way Washington wanted. His reputation would be so damaged that he had to publish a defense of his actions, which Washington, now retired, bought a copy and critiqued it in the margins.


(President Washington was very disappointed in Monroe.)

“Monroe never saw the comments made by Washington, which would have interested him far more than any others. The former President read Monroe's book carefully, jotting comments in the margin of his copy. These extensive notations, occupying more then forty pages in his printed correspondence, constituted a running argument with the opinions of the former Minister. Washington felt, and in this he was correct, that Monroe had been less then just in his refusal to acknowledge the strict neutrality adopted by the administration. Somewhat less correctly Washington believed that Monroe's subservience to France led him to sacrifice the interests of the United States” p.168

He would then go on to serve as Governor of Virginia, which was an honorable but powerless office. Monroe did oversee the suppression of Gabriel's Rebellion, but his effort to pardon the rebels or at least spare their lives was undermined by the executive council. After his time as governor was over he was sent, by President Jefferson, to Europe to serve as our Minster to the Court of St. James.


(President Jefferson sent Monroe to Europe again.)

“The council after approving his request for six pardons, was divided in October when the Governor proposed to reprieve all who were less deeply involved until the legislature should meet. Without the right to break the tie, Monroe had no alternative then to let the executions take place.” p.188

(Monument to heroes who died fighting for their freedom.)

During his second tour of Europe, Monroe would meet many interesting personalities, most notably, King George III and Napoleon Bonaparte. It is interesting, unlike Jefferson and more like John Adams, Monroe found himself really liking King George III. Monroe was very disappointed in the way the French Revolution was going. It seemed to him that the British Monarchy had principals that were more republican then the French Republic, which soon was not going to a republic.


(King George III, who Monroe surprisingly liked.)

“Monroe naturally looked forward with curiosity to his presentation to the King—a rebel encountering his former sovereign. His long-cherished animosity towards George III was modified by the courtesy of the King's reception. When the American Minister voiced the desire of the President to maintain friendly relations with the two nations, the King, expressing reciprocal sentiments, spoke of the great interest he had taken in the welfare of the United States since the Revolution. After these formal remarks George III inquired about conditions in Virginia, and revealed, to Monroe's surprise, a considerable knowledge of the early history of the College of William and Mary. The only embarrassing moment during the interview occurred when the King queried about the French: 'They have no religion, have they?' After a momentary hesitation Monroe cautiously ventured the opinion that he believed there were many in France, who, indeed, had none. Since this seemed to accord with the King's opinion, the reception ended on an amicable noted. The new Minister felt that the King, at the request of the Foreign Secretary, Lord Hawkesbury, had made a sincere effort to create a friendly atmosphere.”p.225-6

Returning to the United States, he goes on to be Governor of Virginia again, but left soon after Robert Smith had proven to be a disappointment to President James Madison as secretary of state. Monroe was then called to fill that role for the country. In next few years, the War of 1812 erupted and the country was invade and Washington D.C. was sacked and burnt. After President Madison fired John Armstrong, Jr. as Secretary of War, he had Secretary Monroe succeed him and therefore be the nation’s war and state chiefs all at the same time. Monroe had served with distinction although what he really wanted a field command. Nevertheless, the country was so pleased with his performance that he was elected President of the United States, over the last Federalist nominee, Rufus King, in 1816.


(President Madison strongly relied on James Monroe in the War of 1812.)

“For the first time the Presidency seemed to be offered as a reward for meritorious service or as an honor bestowed on a respected public servant, rather then as a prize to be carried off by the strongest party in a bitterly fought contest.” p.357

As Monroe took office the United States began what we refer to as the
'Era of Good Feelings,’ because the Federalist Party was now dead, and there was a national consensus in support of President Monroe. During his presidency, we would gain the Florida as a territory; adopt a new code for the Flag of the United States, with thirteen stripes for the original colonies and stars to represent the states. The most important foreign policy accomplishment was enacted with the Monroe Doctrine, which declared the Americas off limits to further colonization and recolonization from European powers. He was reelected without opposition in 1820*, however since no one else ran there was a record low voter turn out. When Monroe declined to run in 1824, that year marked one of the most contested elections of all, which would restore the country's two party system.

“The Monroe Doctrine has had a long and varied history as the keystone of American policy toward Latin America. Only in recent times has it faded into the background, as a result of the imperial connotations attached to it. Most of these subsequent developments were not contemplated by Monroe; if he had guessed at them, he would indeed have been alarmed.” p.491

(President James Monroe)

The end of the book focuses on his quite post-presidency, that would only last six years of him leaving the White House. Monroe's legacy would, on occasion, in the chaos that was going to come would often be one of nostalgia. I would highly recommend this book to anyone who would like to know more or anything about our nation's fifth president.

*However he did not get a unanimous vote in the Electoral College, because William Plummer, who did not like Monroe, did not want to see anyone but Washington get that honor.

{Video taken from the History Channel.}