Despite being a student of this era, I learned a great deal in the details. I have given the book to two family members who are interested in our history, and they have also enjoyed reading it. Woods writes so well that the details become absorbing, never overwheming, although I did feel that military history was not his strongest point.

I took it with me to a 7 hour marathon at a swimming spa, with my granddaughter (7) and her cousin (10). I was not required to watch them as lifeguards were on duty and I had a great time with the book, covering a number of chapters.

//Empire of Liberty// immediately engages the reader from the first page. Author Gordon S. Wood keeps details in their proper narrative context, allowing those details to enrich the reader's experience; Wood expertly weaves the overarching discussion of historical happenings with the personal depictions of the founders of the United States. Although the book is chronological, it is not bogged down in a dry recitation of events; rather, it is structured upon interesting issues such as the early desire not to have political parties, the intense fear that the president would become a monarch and that the United States would become England all over again, and the spiritual connection with France and the Enlightenment, mirrored in the person of Thomas Jefferson. //Empire of Liberty// is a book about struggle and bears out the notion that agony itself leads to the best humankind can produce when tempered by the rule of law. Indeed, it was a struggle to throw off European traditions of monarchy and social hierarchy. The struggle between the founders' personalities and their differing political philosophies was at times strident and impassioned. One leaves the book thinking that the development of the United States in the years following the Revolutionary War was nothing short of a miracle and that early American leaders were exceptional human beings, in spite of their shortcomings. Wood's insight into people and events makes //Empire of Liberty// a worthwhile and satisfying read.

Reviewed by Suzanne Christensen

Didn't actually read this book yet but read parts of it in the book store prior to purchasing it for Xmas for my boss. I can wait to read it myself. Beautifully written and insightful from what I've seen so far.

I am using this novel as a reference work for a college course in "Law and Literature" that I teach at a local university. It is a comprehensive, deep, enlightened account of early American society that traces the development of American history, culture and institutions, including the legal institutions that we inherited from Britain and, with an overlay of Constitutional principles and American legal institutions, ultimately made our own. Anyone with an interest in the roots and development of early American institutions, and foundations of the modern American society, will find this book an invaluable resource. Its scope and intellectual depth are approached by no recent work in the field that I have read other than Sean Wilentz's "Rise of American Democracy."

In addition, "Empire of Liberty" is readable. I disagree with those here who describe Wood's style as "dense". His material is complex and his analysis is multi-layered and nuanced, but his work is accessible to the nonprofessional.

We came from empire, but established a rule of liberty. Anyone who is interested in the process, or the result, will appreciate this book.

I am reading this "series" having first completed The Glorious Cause. Empire of Liberty picks up the chronology at 1789 taking the reader to 1815. This period is best categorized as the emergence of a swiftly maturing mass democracy following the excitement of national independence. Founded on inspiring but untested principles and goals, this shows the shaky but promising America as it begins to execute against its ideals and strategy. As the author states, "In the decades following the Revolution America changed so much and so rapidly that Americans not only became used to change but came to expect it and prize it". This insight along with the American drive for commerce and less-than-successful handling of foreign affairs are three characteristics of modern America that were born in this era.

After espousing and fighting for democracy and equality, Americans now had to fulfill their promise. This change of "subject" to "citizens" was huge and naturally the young nation stumbled. As early as 1787 it was clear that the Revolutionary leaders had retreated from much of the Republican idealism that formed their crusade. This was not out of want but out of necessity given the challenges of the day. One of these challenges was the changing social strata given that all men were now created equal. There arose a conflict between the new 'middling people' and the gentry-aristocracy. Wealth, sophistication and worldliness was no longer preserved for the upper crust. This social struggle resulted in the middle class and would transform America for decades.

This period also produced a certain arrogance as well. Americans could not speak of a national character or identity because it had not yet been forged. Instead they took the position that they were more "enlightened and ideally located along the process of social development". This belief was quickly shared across its geography through the advantage of a common language. John Adams suggested that American English would become the next universal language (and it certainly is in business). The glorious cause had turned into a noble social one but with airs.

Yet, there was a great deal of uncertainty when Washington became the first president. Ceremonies had monarchical symbolism, some wanted him to rule as a king, and even the Founders were unsure on how to form a democratic government. Like Hamilton, most had a vision of America becoming a great powerful nation yet he had the foresight and intelligence to lay the economic framework to achieve it. Hamilton knew where people's ambition lay and he influenced it by stoking the coals of commerce (Thomas Paine had said in 1776 "Our plan is commerce.").

This was also a time of party politics which had not been predicted. Washington turns out to be a tremendous diplomat in this turmoil. The author points out that the first President's goals were clear, "All he ever wanted for America, was time for its institutions to settle and mature, time for it to progress in strength and become master of its own fortunes." He accomplished this during an incredibly contentious time. A time when the Federalists began to label the Republicans "Democrats" which was a derogatory term (as a Canadian, I almost needed a cheat sheet to keep Federalist, Republicans and Democrats clear).

The new century tested the leadership and its new institutions. There was significant social upheaval including rioting, excessive drinking, lax social behavior, and the disintegration of the family. The native issue remained large and incredibly sad with one Wea speaker saying to their British ally in the Revolutionary War, "In endeavouring to assist you, it seems we have wrought our own ruin". And as America took over dealings with the natives, the author observes and concludes, "The encounter between the two incompatible cultures was a tragedy from beginning to end".

Perhaps the greatest reform challenge of the period was the anti-slavery movement. Yet, one fifth of the population remained enslaved. The Revolution freed only a small fraction but created an atmosphere that made the practice of slavery abhorrent. This though had a terrible impact as it forced Southerners "to fall back on the alleged racial deficiencies of blacks as a justification for an institution that hitherto they had taken for granted and never before needed to justify. The anti-slavery movement that arose out of the Revolution inadvertently produced racism in America."

The War of 1812 is also covered and I was amazed to see how much American lore sprung from it: the national anthem, "we have met the enemy and they are ours", the killing of Tecumseh, Old Ironsides, and more. The author believes it was one of the most important wars in American history - also the strangest war in American history. Its start was Gulf of Tonkin-ish as the reasons stated were British impressment of American sailors and other maritime violations, yet, that hardly seems cause for war. What it truly resulted in was national pride.

It was also a time of progress. Common men became gentlemen with a new focus on education, refinement, the arts, and communications (newspapers and the post office sped up shared communications along with better roads). As this period closes the author believes that "it made it much easier for Americans to come to a more honest appreciation of their society's preoccupation with economic development and money-making". He points out one fact that I have observed, that even from this early time, Americans were unsettled and moved frequently from place to place. I must say that as a Canadian who has worked for a series of American companies, I have been amazed at how quickly my colleagues will pick up and move for a slight increase in compensation or title. Canadians are far more rooted which is very interesting and tied to how the two nations evolved.

Clearly executing against ideals on paper are more challenging than can be assumed and early American is such an example. The book is incredibly interesting and had a great pace to it although I have to admit certain chapters required patience especially those covering law and the judiciary and religion. Overall it was fascinating. The author provides accurate foreshadowing when he writes, "The Civil War was the climax of a tragedy that was preordained from the time of the Revolution." I am looking forward to the next in the series, What Hath God Wrought: The Transformation of America, 1815-1848.

Empire of Liberty (a phrase used repeatedly by Thomas Jefferson) is the newest volume in the Oxford History of the United States. All of these long and expertly written books are excellent and serve as the sine qua non of the
particular era under review. This 738 page opus focuses on the little known timespan (to the general reading public) of the early post-Revolutionary age from 1789 to 1815, It was a period marked by a decline of aristocratically ruled government and the emergence of the middle class.
This was a crucial period for the fledgling United States of America. Wood makes clear the bitter rivalry between the Anglophilic, monarchial favoring, banking and wealthy aristocratic party of the Federalists and their Republican opponents. The Federalists under the leadership of Alexander Hamilton favored a Bank of the United States, internal improvements and a strong federal government. They were strongest in New England. First President George Washington and second chief executive John Adams were standard bearers of this party. The Republican-Democratic party was led by the Virginians Thomas Jefferson and James Madison. These two men would serve as our nation's third and fourth presidents. The Republicans favored limited goverment, opposed the Bank of the United States, favored the aspirations of the common person and were supporters (at least at the beginning) of the French Revolution. Jefferson wanted the United States to become a utopian land of independent farmers content to be isolationistic in foreign affairs. Alexander Hamilton, his arch enemy leader of the Federalists, wanted America to become an industrial power centered in urban areas with strong central leadership from the president.
Gordon Wood takes us on an exciting journey with Lewis and Clark's Corp of Discovery as they travelled from St.Louis to the West Coast. America expanded by 50% during this era with the development of the Northwest Territory, the addition of several statees and the Jefferson's administration (1801-1809) of the Louisiana Purchase from Napoleonic France. (The European conflict between Great Britain and Revolutionary France is the backdrop to American diplomacy in the 1792-1815 period).
Wood spends two long chapters on the development of the American judicial system and judicial review under the skilled leadership of Chief Justice John Marshall (The Virginian was a distant cousin of Thomas Jefferson). Marshall was a Federalist.
Other chapters deal with the spread of evangelical religion and the cancer of African-American slavery which was a time bomb awaiting explosion. Thomas Jefferson referred to slavery as a "firebell in the night." Slavery would grow like Topsy only to be exorcized by the horrific American Civil War (1861-65) which left over 600,000 Americans dead and countless more wounded. It is ironic that many of our founding fathers calling for American liberty were slave owners of vast plantations in Virginia and the South.
The Yankee spirit of self-improvement and business acumen became manifest as Americans used their inventive genius to become wealthy. Men like Robert Fulton the inventor of the steamboat soared to prominence. Though an overwhelmingly rural society, Americans were becoming shrewd in the ways of business and the making of money.
Wood describes the careers and accomplishments of such men as Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Madison and Monroe who forged a new nation in what had been 13 separate British colonies. Early America was a rough, wild and woolly place in which Indians, the British in the northwest and harsh climate challenged hardy pioneers.
As the book comes to an end following US victory in the War of 1812 (this most controversial of US wars cost America over 6,000 lives), the United States was a rising glory of democratic but imperfect freedom. The huge gorilla in the room was slavery.
Wood's book is authored by a scholar who has devoted overe fifty years to the writing of outstanding books on early America. He is an emeritus professor of History at Brown University. His book is erudite without being stuffy.a huge challenge. This volume is a magisterial effort as Wood enlightens the era for the modern reader. Excellent and essential to anyone who wishes to know more about the emmpire of liberty!

Gordon Wood has written an absorbing description of life in early America. It is rich in details that help to explain the dynamics of the formation of our republic. It is a brilliant book!

Gordon S. Woods is a distinguished scholar of the American Revolution and the early history of the United States. His previous books, The Creation of the American Republic, 1776-1787 and The Radicalism of the American Revolution, were both excellent (5 star) works, the former covering the intellectual developments that lead to the creation of the U.S. Constitution in 1787 and the latter covering the enormous social changes that transformed American society from a hierarchical, monarchical society in the decades before the Revolution to a democratic society after 1800.

"The Empire of Liberty" is a very insightful history of the early years of the United States after the formation of the new federal government that the Constitution had defined. While there are many books that focus on the American Revolution itself or the Jacksonian period of 1815-1848, this might be the first comprehensive treatment of the entire period in-between, 1789-1815; at least, it's the only one currently available. It is a worthy addition to the Oxford History of the United States, filling in the gap between The Glorious Cause: The American Revolution, 1763-1789 and What Hath God Wrought: The Transformation of America, 1815-1848, which were both excellent books.

Woods is a good historian and writer and does a good job balancing coverage of the politics, key events, and social and cultural changes of the period. He also is reasonably fair towards the opposing political factions of the period, the Federalists and the Republicans. While he might come across as biased towards Jefferson's Republicans, I think this is a consequence of his overarching focus on the democratization of American society. Readers should read the entire book before judging Woods's political bias. While he does criticize the Federalists in the first half of the book for being out of touch with the majority of the American public, he does give them credit for their economic and political contributions; he also criticizes Jefferson and Madison for their inept economic embargo policies prior to the War of 1812. While I'm a big fan of the Federalists and the Whigs that succeeded them and think Jefferson was a terrible President, it is true that the Federalists were trying to maintain the rule of a social elite (the gentry or gentlemen) which could not be maintained at a time in which common farmers and artisans had been politically empowered by the same American Revolution that had put the Federalists in power between 1789 and 1800. The fact that the Federalists withered away is the ultimate proof that they were out of touch; while it is true that they failed to organize their party as quickly as the Republicans, they could have bounced back if their political and social positions had had broader appeal.

My main problem with this book is that I had already read The Age of Federalism: The Early American Republic, 1788-1800 by Elkins and McKitrick and Woods's other books. Covering a shorter period, Elkins and McKitrick were able to provide a lot more details on the main political and historical events of the years up to 1800. In contrast, I felt that Woods's treatment seemed thin. Additionally, having already read "The Radicalism of the American Revolution", I did not learn anything new about the social transformation of the period. There are also better books about the administrations of Jefferson and Madison and the War of 1812, for instance: The Presidency of Thomas Jefferson and 1812: The War That Forged a Nation.

While I don't feel that I learned much that I hadn't already read in other books, I am glad I read "Empire of Liberty" since I appreciated getting Woods's point of view on the events and trends of the period. I certainly recommend it to anyone who does want a single account of the entire period. But if you want to explore the period more deeply while also covering the social developments, I recommend reading "The Age of Federalism", "The Radicalism of the American Revolution" and other books.

This book is an ambitious and fairly comprehensive attempt to describe and explain the transformation of the United States in the 1780s from a poorly structured, powerless collection of states to a nation that finally achieved an independent identity and standing in the world community by 1815. In that transformation, no areas of American life escaped profound changes, be it demographics, infrastructure, culture, economics, law, religion, etc. Most important, however, given that the American Revolution was in the first instance a political revolution, the author focuses on the attempt of conservative aristocrats to rollback the democratic excesses of farmers and artisans in the 1780s through the checks and balances of the Constitution of 1787 and on the resultant profound clash waged throughout the 1790s and beyond between the Federalists, led by Washington and Hamilton, and the Jeffersonian Republicans, including Madison, concerning the direction that the US would take politically, economically, and diplomatically.

The chaos engendered by the French Revolution, the two-decade war beginning in 1793 between France and England, the neo-British financial plan of Hamilton, and the pro-British diplomacy of the Federalists exacerbated fears among Republicans of a latent desire to reestablish a monarchial order, while Federalists found pro-French views to be indicative of pending anarchy. While not really like a modern political party, the Democratic-Republican societies of the mid-90s became an organized Republican opposition, playing a major role in Jefferson's election in 1800. Federalist paranoia of pro-French and democratic sentiments reached both its height and nadir with the passage of the Sedition Act in 1798, resulting in the shutting down of several Republican newspapers and the jailing of their editors. It was a last gasp of those desirous of retaining the old order before being swept away by the democratic promise of the Revolution.

As also told in Wood's "The Radicalism of the American Revolution," the most profound change across this span of thirty years or so was in the reordering of society. The automatic deference to landed gentry, the learned, priests, and the like slowly eroded as people began to trust their own instincts and emphasize their self-interests. This was entirely consistent with the radical principle of placing total sovereignty of the nation in the hands of all the people. The framers undoubtedly little understood the forces that they had unleashed. Americans essentially rejected social orders. Public opinion became an amorphous amalgamation of all views and was credited with more wisdom than elite opinion. As the author points out, this general social leveling was cause for consternation among the more learned as classical and enlightenment views were scarcely known to "middling" folk; furthermore, artistic endeavors did not measure up to European standards. Americans were not philosophers and scientists; they were tinkerers. Interestingly, Benjamin Franklin, with his series of books offering practical advice, was the most admired founder in the 19th century, over the philosophers of the founding. This is not to say that there was no idealism in the American psyche. Virtuous republicans were concerned with education, humanitarian societies, and prison reform.

Though the Republicans may have been anti-Hamilton, they were not anti-commerce. In fact, the Republicans were staunch advocates of free trade to give farmers markets for their surplus production. Subsistence farming was seen to be stultifying for the human spirit. The Jeffersonian promotion of westward expansion was the mechanism for the US to remain a largely agricultural society, while also remaining commercially active. The Hamiltonian vision of widespread manufacturing was evocative of the horrendous conditions found in European cities filled with factories. The author points to the disingenuous views of the Jeffersonians that the world community would welcome a system of free trade, completely ignoring political realities. In fact, it was the restriction of US trade involving the seizing of ships and sailors by both the British and the French in the mid-1800s that directly led to the Republican embargo in 1808. The self-inflicted hardship on the US, with no noticeable effect on Britain, resulted in the War of 1812. The War of 1812 was a stalemate at best with many casualties, but more importantly and ironically, the US actually achieved a real independence, commericially and otherwise.

The changes in the political and social makeup of the US in the decades of the 1790s and 1800s were of such significance that Jefferson contended that his election was part of a second American revolution. It is hard to argue against the casting off of the psychological and commercial dependence on Britain, the democratization of US political and social life that more or less continues today, the formation of a working national government from a mere constitutional blueprint, and all the other developments of the era as constituting profound, even revolutionary, changes. It would be difficult to compare the extent of these changes with other American periods - for example, the profound changes from 1860 to 1900 come to mind. The one constant of American life has been change.

No other book comes to mind that attempts to bring together all of the elements of American society of this complex period, hence a label of being ambitious. For its length, the book is amazingly readable, organized into nineteen focused chapters. As far as any Jeffersonian bias on the part of the author, Jefferson was the principal figure and symbol of a way of thinking that ultimately did prevail in the US and largely continues today. That is simply reality. The author does not dismiss Hamiltonian financial ideas that also exist today. It is the elitism of the Federalists that was swept away by a newly formed "people." He does acknowledge that Jefferson misunderstood the need for the US to develop a manufacturing capacity - it took the War of 1812 to convince him. Yet one can look at the urban degradation with the coming of US industrialization to know that Jefferson's concerns were correct. At this point, this book stands as the preeminent book on this era in its willingness to take on most all aspects of the entire period.

This book is an ambitious and fairly comprehensive attempt to describe and explain the transformation of the United States in the 1780s from a poorly structured, powerless collection of states to a nation that finally achieved an independent identity and standing in the world community by 1815. In that transformation, no areas of American life escaped profound changes, be it demographics, infrastructure, culture, economics, law, religion, etc. Most important, however, given that the American Revolution was in the first instance a political revolution, the author focuses on the attempt of conservative aristocrats to rollback the democratic excesses of farmers and artisans in the 1780s through the checks and balances of the Constitution of 1787 and on the resultant profound clash waged throughout the 1790s and beyond between the Federalists, led by Washington and Hamilton, and the Jeffersonian Republicans, including Madison, concerning the direction that the US would take politically, economically, and diplomatically.

The chaos engendered by the French Revolution, the two-decade war beginning in 1793 between France and England, the neo-British financial plan of Hamilton, and the pro-British diplomacy of the Federalists exacerbated fears among Republicans of a latent desire to reestablish a monarchial order, while Federalists found pro-French views to be indicative of pending anarchy. While not really like modern political parties, the Democratic-Republican societies of the mid-90s became an organized Republican opposition, playing a major role in Jefferson's election in 1800. Federalist paranoia of pro-French and democratic sentiments reached both its height and nadir with the passage of the Sedition Act in 1798, resulting in the shutting down of several Republican newspapers and the jailing of their editors. It was a last gasp of those desirous of retaining the old order before being swept away by the democratic promise of the Revolution.

As also told in Wood's "The Radicalism of the American Revolution," the most profound change across this span of thirty years or so was in the reordering of society. The automatic deference to landed gentry, the learned, priests, and the like slowly eroded as people began to trust their own instincts and emphasize their self-interests. This was entirely consistent with the radical principle of placing total sovereignty of the nation in the hands of all the people. The framers undoubtedly little understood the forces that they had unleashed. Americans essentially rejected social orders. Public opinion became an amorphous amalgamation of all views and was credited with more wisdom than elite opinion. As the author points out, this general social leveling was cause for consternation among the more learned as classical and enlightenment views were scarcely known to "middling" folk; furthermore, artistic endeavors did not measure up to European standards. Americans were not philosophers and scientists; they were tinkerers. This is not to say that there was no idealism in the American psyche. Virtuous republicans were concerned with education, humanitarian societies, and prison reform.

Though the Republicans may have been anti-Hamilton, they were not anti-commerce. In fact, the Republicans were staunch advocates of free trade to give farmers markets for their surplus production. Subsistence farming was seen to be stultifying for the human spirit. The Jeffersonian promotion of westward expansion was the mechanism for the US to remain a largely agricultural society, while also remaining commercially active. The Hamiltonian vision of widespread manufacturing was evocative of the horrendous conditions found in European cities filled with factories. The author points to the disingenuous views of the Jeffersonians that the world community would welcome a system of free trade, completely ignoring political realities. In fact, it was the restriction of US trade involving the seizing of ships and sailors by both the British and the French in the mid-1800s that directly led to the Republican embargo in 1808. The self-inflicted hardship on the US, with no noticeable effect on Britain, resulted in the War of 1812.

The changes in the political and social makeup of the US in the decades of the 1790s and 1800s were of such significance that Jefferson contended that his election was part of a second American revolution. It is hard to argue against the casting off of the psychological and commercial dependence on Britain, the democratization of US political and social life that more or less continues today, the formation of a working national government from a mere constitutional blueprint, and all the other developments of the era as constituting profound, even revolutionary, changes. It would be difficult to compare the extent of these changes with other American periods. The one constant of American life has been change.

No other book comes to mind that attempts to bring together all of the elements of American society of this complex period, hence a label of being ambitious. For its length, the book is amazingly readable, organized into nineteen focused chapters. As far as any Jeffersonian bias on the part of the author, Jefferson was the principal figure and symbol of a way of thinking that ultimately did prevail in the US and largely continues today. That is simply reality. The author does not dismiss Hamiltonian financial ideas that also exist today. It is the elitism of the Federalists that was swept away by a newly formed "people." He does acknowledge that Jefferson completely misunderstood the need for the US to develop a manufacturing capacity. Yet one can look at the urban degradation with the coming of US industrialization to know that Jefferson had that part right. At this point, this book stands as the preeminent book on this era in its willingness to take on most all aspects of the entire period.

It is difficult to miss with any of the "Oxford Hstory of the United States" series. They are all uniformly excellent. And this is no exception.

I am not a breathless fan of Gordon Wood. However, this centrist work does an incredible job of weaving together most of the socio-political forces working within the young United States during the Constitutional period to 1815 in a thoroughly comprehensible read. Generalist history does not get much better than this, and the other reviews in this thread do a superior job of evaluating the merits of the work in detail.

Since I have little to add, I will confine my own review to perhaps the highest of all praises. Worth opening your wallet!

Recommended without reservation.

I am in the midst of reading Gordon S. Wood's excellent book, "Empire of Liberty." I am reviewing this now, firstly, this is a lengthy text which lends itself to being read through and or used as a reference tool.

Superbly written, with great source material, Gordon Wood writes as if he completely enjoys the subject matter.

Empire of Liberty takes us from the aftermath of the Revolutionary War through the write up of the first constitution to the first congress and senate and the first presidency. He does a compare and contrast between what were the colonies and what was then European society. Fascinating tidbits of information like language, in what was the new USA there was one language, not so in any of the European countries that these Americans came from. You learn that the term American was a perjorative used by the British and was come to be accepted gradually by the new Republic.

He does a compare and contrast of European society and the class system of sorts that had developed in the colonies and beyond where the Aristocrats (those with land, education, profession and time) were juxtaposed against those who were the middling sort, the middle class workers, farmers, traders and artisans who had to work for their moneys. There was not so much class envy as a desire by those in the highest strata of society to run things, with those middlings desiring and believing what they heard, a participative democracy.

Unlike some great reads where we hear only the rosey side of history, or those where you feel the author has a bone to pick or is stuck in critical mode, Woods writes this in a very even tenor. You feel he is telling things like it is, but mostly just factual, occassionally he shares irony and he seems much of a reporter without any particular point of view. He seems to want to inform us as to what really happened without commentary. Pretty cool, especially with the way he writes.

I have not been able to put this down so far and hope to complete it in short order. Yet, there is so much information to digest. I love it too that much of what he uses as source material is available online today.

Lastly, he takes us through the development of the USA and finalizes what we were when at last we broke free from British influences at last with the war of 1812.

If there is a desire on your part to learn about how we came to have this great society without the hooplah, this is the read for you.

Empire of Liberty is one of those reads that is rare indeed.

Gordon Wood's "Empire of Liberty is an excellent addition to the outstanding Oxford History of the United States collection. Rather than offering any new points or perspectives as he did in "The Radicalism of the American Revolution" or "The Americanization of Benjamin Franklin", Wood has managed to synthesize all the history written about this time period. While it is very extensive in its coverage, "Empire of Liberty" still reads well, as one would expect from Gordon Wood. Highly recommended for anyone who has an interest in this important time in our history.

Gordon S. Wood examines a period of U.S. history about which I knew very little before reading this book. That is, from the signing of the Constitution in 1788 until the signing of the Treaty of Ghent in 1815 that finally ended the War of 1812. It is one of the volumes within "The Oxford History of the United States" series for which another distinguished historian, David M. Kennedy, serves as General Editor. As Wood explains in the Introduction, "By 1815, Americans had experienced a transformation in the way they related to each other and in the way they perceived themselves and the world around them. And this transformation took place before industrialization, before urbanization, before railroads, and before any of the technological breakthroughs usually associated with modern social change. In the decades following the revolution America changed so much and so rapidly that Americans not only became used to change but came to expect and prize it."

Thus does Wood prepare his reader for a rigorous and comprehensive examination of what was indeed a multi-dimensional "transformation" during which thirteen "separate republics" eventually became "the United States of America," with its people appropriating the name that belonged to all the peoples of the New World - "even though the term `Americans' actually had begun as a pejorative label the metropolitan English had applied to their inferior and far-removed colonists." Throughout the lively and eloquent narrative that follows, Wood explains who and what played major roles in that process from a "monarchical republic" struggling for survival to what had become, "in the minds of its citizens, a nation to be reckoned with."

Of special interest to me is Wood's discussion of what Jefferson once characterized as "the miseries of slavery." He claimed that slavery's role in Missouri "was not a moral question, but one merely of power." Wood disagrees. "He was wrong. It wad a moral question, and the passions of the sons of the Founders was neither unwise nor unworthy; indeed, they had been his passions as well - the love of liberty and the desire for equality...Yet [Jefferson] always sensed that his `empire of liberty' had a cancer at its core that was eating away at the message of liberty and equality and threatening the very existence of the nation and its democratic self-government; but he had mistakenly come to believe that the cancer was Northern bigotry and money-making promoted by Federalists priests and merchants." Wood leaves no doubt that slavery would soon become the single most controversial issue for the new nation to address, especially as the thirteen colonies were joined by Vermont (1791), Kentucky (1702), Tennessee (1796), Ohio (1802), and Louisiana (1812). To what extent would slavery be a factor within the territories of Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, Mississippi, and especially Missouri? According to Wood, "The Civil War was the climax of a tragedy that was preordained from the time of the Revolution. Only with the elimination of slavery could this nation that Jefferson had called `the world's best hope' for democracy even begin to fulfill its great promise."

Those who wish to examine the next era of U.S. history are urged to check out Walter A. McDougall's Throes of Democracy: The American Civil War Era 1829-1877 and Jon Meacham's American Lion: Andrew Jackson in the White House.

If, like me, you're just getting into reading popular history, you might be used to books with a very readable narrative, like John Adams by David McCullough or even The Civil War: A Narrative by Shelby Foote. In comparison to those, I found this work a bit more academic and less readable, but still dense with fascinating information. While any given part I turn to for an example is well-written, the work as a whole lacks the engaging narrative I've been spoiled by in my other pop history reads.

Another outstanding installment of the Oxford History of the United States. Empire of Liberty is erudite, thoughtful, comprehensive, and the quality of writing is unusually good. Wood does an unusually good job of balancing the basic narrative with thematic discussions of the relevant social history, intellectual history, economic history, and religious history. There is also a very nice balance between descriptions/analyses of the experiences and actions of major figures like Jefferson and Hamilton and the lives of the mass of citizens of the infant American republic.

Wood organizes his narrative and analyses around 3 important themes. One is the American sense of a great experiment in Republicanism and self-government. As Wood points out, not only was the American republican experiment distinctive, but for much of the period discussed, Europe was in a period of reaction against the French Revolution. The second theme is the emergence of a more democratic society dominated by what Wood refers to "middling" people. Wood's narrative is very much the story of the development of a relatively democratic political and economic system dominated by what was broadly a middle class with a very commercial social orientation and evangelical religious preferences. Wood also discusses very well some of the drawbacks of these developments, notably the relative anti-intellectualism, herrenvolk democracy aspects, and unrealistic foreign policy preferences of early American society. Finally, a recurrent theme, and one that follows the writings of the great 19th century historian Henry Adams, is that many of these developments were unintended consequences. As Wood shows nicely, many of the Founders were classical Republicans and viewed the Constitution as a means to restrain popular excess. The political system that emerged, however, was the most democratic in the world. The development of the American party system based on popular mobilization was led by Madison and Jefferson, classical republicans who claimed to despise "faction."

Wood lays out the major political, foreign policy, and social/economic trends beautifully. His treatments of the major political and social figures are concise and insightful. The balance between telling detail and the big picture is excellent throughout. Without being anachronistic, Wood also does an excellent job of identifying features that would have major consequences for the future. The significant and widening differences between the economic, social, and political systems of the North and South are laid out nicely. The problem of the basic contradiction between an increasingly democratic republican nation and the presence of slavery is discussed insightfully. As with all volumes of OHUS, there is a very useful annotated bibliography providing guidance for further reading.

Empire of Liberty is particularly impressive when viewed in the context of the published volumes of OHUS. The sequence covering approximately the first century of US history consists of Middlekauf's The Glorious Cause, Empire of Liberty, Howe's What Hath God Wrought, and McPherson's Battle Cry of Freedom. These books are all individually superb and collectively the best cumulative historical survey in existence. All these books reflect a basic, perhaps the basic, question of the American historical experience - what does it mean to be a democratic society? The editors of OHUS, initially the late C. Vann Woodward and now David Kennedy (the author of the equally superb OHUS volume on the Great Depression and WWII) deserve great credit for recruiting a series of outstanding scholars to produce these outstanding volumes.

For anyone who is a fan of the Oxford History of the United States series, this latest volume will be an invaluable edition to your collection. It nicely balances chapters on education/arts/culture, law, and religion in America, with the importance of major legislation setting up the foundation of the country, the roles of Presidents Washington, Adams, and Jefferson, and the disputes between federalist and anti-federalist influences following the radification of the Constitution.

Beyond the text itself - the work is supposed to fit in with the other volumes of the Oxford History of America series and present a definitive history of the entire era. In this goal - the text fails absolutely. I love the Oxford Series and have read all 8 volumes, however, in several ways this work, while so complete through 1808, lacks the clarity of vision for the end of the period.

Empire of Liberty devotes less than 80 pages to Madison's presidency and the War of 1812. The reader is given the distinct impression that the author simply ran out of time - like reviewing a student's essay that clearly spent too much time on the first half of an answer, resulting in an abbreviated second half. This is unfortunate, as the Oxford Series has published a number of longer works, and certainly would have lost no readers by including an additional 100 pages to make the work truely complete. Unlike What God Hath Wrought and Freedom From Fear - Empire of Liberty is going to require a serious and extended second edition if it wants to purport to be a complete history of the era through 1815.

I disagree strongly with the implication that the author has no ideological axe in his work. Wood is clearly obsessed with stressing and explaining the American developments after radificiation with early Americans distrust of "Monarchy." In fact Monarchy, monarchial, and other forms appear more than 700 times over the course of the text. (I started tallying in chapter 3 - it was that obvious). Unlike some reviews here, I do not think Wood has an overt political bias favoring the Jeffersonian Republicans or skewering Hamiltonian Federalists, but certainly there is a feeling of an academic agenda that at times made me put the book down in a way that Freedom from Fear, What God Hath Wrought, Battle Cry for Freedom, and Glorious Cause (other remarkable and superior volumes in the Oxford series) did not.

Finally, I was shocked at a couple key omissions. There is no mention of the "era of good feelings" which many historians term the era that led to Jefferson's emergence as President. The War of 1812 is covered in a mere 35 pages, Madison's first election is mentioned in passing, with no discussion of his vice president or a list of his cabinent officers. There is no mention of the death of President Washington's reaction around the country. The election of 1812 covered in two paragraphs. Other works in the series have previewed important players and events in the next text, in a way that makes reading the texts in order appear seamless, but Howe's What God Hath Wrought profiles many leaders as having important roles in the War of 1812 that are simply omitted in Wood's work.

Accordingly, by the standards of a well written and researched history text, Empire of Liberty exceeds expectations. Doubtless, like many of its companion volumes, it will win awards. But as for allowing the History of the United States series to present a complete and thorough accounting of the 1808-1815 era, this work and the Oxford Series have suffered a tremendous blow that only a revised second edition or new volume can satisfactorily address.

Reading "Empire of Liberty" is ambitious. It is not a book that can be breezed through in one sitting. No, it is a very in-depth look at the founding of the United States. It is not just a look at history, a listing of the facts, but it is a philosophical study of the leaders and the impact of their decisions. That is what separates "Empire of Liberty" from other books of this genre it is not a straight-forward chronological telling of history. Each chapter of "Empire of Liberty" is a discrete lesson of American history. One chapter focuses the founding judicial review another focuses on religion. What is so enlightening is Wood's ability to show how each (such as religion) to become a uniquely American.

Some have complained that Wood is overly focused on the republican values (circa 1800 not in today's sense of the word) at the expense of the Federalist. While it is true that much of the material focuses on the Jeffersonian view of a republican society, but I think it is fair and shows the true mood of the country. Wood has a fair approach as it shows the brilliance of Hamilton, but he shows the bias towards England. The Republicans are certainly not given a free-ride as Wood shows the insanity of the trade embargos prior to the war of 1812. The overriding theme is America's obsession with Liberty and how it shaped every decision that was made by the early republic. Again, it is hard to over-emphasize that this is not a traditional telling of American history - it is a commentary of the times.

"Empire of Liberty" is very relevant for today's American. We are constantly exposed to talking heads who state, "The founding fathers believed this" or "The founding fathers believed that". In truth, most of today's issues would be as foreign to Jefferson, Hamilton, Adams, and Madison as the concept of nuclear fusion. Wood's gives well-thought commentary on the founders beliefs and the underlying principles that guided them in their decision making. Again, this is not light-reading nor will ever be confused with literary fluff.

Final Verdict - Unlike an book that I have ever read - while this is not something that everyone will enjoy it is a "MUST" for anyone with an interest in American History. I would not be surprised to see another Pulitzer coming to Gordon Wood's bookshelf!

5 Stars

Thesis and Summary:

In this, the 8th volume of Oxford's History of the United States, Gordon Wood weighs in on the Washington through Madison administrations, and gives a broad perspective analysis of the burgeoning American and American culture. Indeed, Wood's thesis can be summed up to say that by 1815 America was a thoroughly transformed nation from the one that initiated the revolution in 1776: a nation that had gone from gentleman leaders to a far more inclusive- albeit brutish- democracy.

Woods begins his journey to American Democracy by explaining the "middling" class of Americans that emerged with the ratification of the Constitution. This new class of Americans did not personify the classical notion of virtue that Federalists found necessary to lead. They were a people possessed of a native congeniality for the sake of prosperity. They were fond of money making (and good at it), they weren't Harvard or Princeton educated, and they voted. It is this middling class that is the protagonist (for lack of better word) of Wood's work. He sees their growth as the Federalists' death and he sees Jefferson as their chief advocate and the man responsible for their ascendance to power. Herein one finds Wood's bias. He simply adores Thomas Jefferson and makes bare faced obeisance to him at every turn of the page it seems while looking to traduce Federalists as much as possible. As I read this substantial work, I couldn't help but to constantly contrast it with Elkins and McKitrick's The Age of Federalism: The Early American Republic, 1788-1800. Both works are monumental in scope, but one is sympathetic to Federalists and the other to Republicans.

Chapters 3, 4 and 5 together offer a perplexing and contradictory view of the Washington administration. One the one hand, Alexander Hamilton and the Federalists ignored the middle class as beneath them. On the other, it was Alexander Hamilton's policies that brought tremendous prosperity that led to Federalist popularity in the wake of the Jay and Pickney treaties and the Whiskey Rebellion. Indeed, throughout the work, Wood never discredits the policies of the Federalists; he just merely gives them no credit for those policies.

In chapter 3, The Federalist Program, Wood makes the somewhat dubious claim that Hamilton did not have the foresight to see the future of American manufacturing. I would think that both of Hamilton's foremost biographers (McDonald and Chernow) would strongly disagree, as would Hamilton himself. Further, Wood makes an attempt to characterize Federalist policies as a Walpoleon spoils system without admitting that this was the first federal government instituted in the United States and suffered the exigencies of such: authority, legitimacy and revenue. Should they have appointed people who wanted nothing more than to undermine federal power in favor of state power? Also, for all of Wood's conjecture of a spoils system, no evidence is presented of a corrupt appointment process.

Chapter 4 shows us the emergence of Jefferson and Madison as the opposition to Federalist policy. They fight the assumption of state debts, the chartering of the Bank of the United States (which they let expire in 1810), and Hamilton's stance on foreign policy. As has become a common theme by this point in the book, Wood manages to find a way to justify Jefferson and Madison's actions with Philip Freneau while he has the time to take umbrage with the tone used by Alexander Hamilton (page 154) in totally destroying Jefferson's erroneous fears of his financial system. It really came as no surprise that Wood came down softly on the Republicans in respect to the Genet mission as well.

Wood does a much better job with the Adams administration than his predecessor. Adams fits the Federalist mold that Woods has pigeonholed them all into. He was a monarchist, a self appointed aristocrat and someone who couldn't have foreseen a use for Wood's "middling" class. Wood's makes an excellent case in chapter 6 that the disinterested aristocrat was not possible in America. American land speculation was terribly risky and none sans John Jay could hope to uphold the image of the landed English gentry. He also hits the nail on the head with the "X,Y, Z Affair" and the "Quasi War." He rightly concludes that Federalist gains were offset by their paranoid fears of the "Jacobian" influence. He does not, however, identify the split in the Federalist camp soon enough. Some time before Adams' failed second run at the Presidency the Federalists had already split between he and Hamilton. Hamilton was, in fact, vehemently against the Alien and Sedition Acts and had already brought many Federalists away from Adams.

Having done away with the Federalists, Wood now turns to Jefferson. Certainly no one writing since Dumas Malone has had a better grasp of Jefferson, but Wood's admiration of the man simply leads to what only can be viewed as equivocating on many points. It seems Woods gives Jefferson credit for the entire Revolution on page 287! Wood does correctly point out Republican ideology on page 311 when he quotes Wartman. When Wartman claims that public opinion leads to egalitarian truth, he basically is laying the groundwork for justifying anything. Of course, this is the same ideology that would be used to justify slavery some decades later. It is this that killed the Federalists. They never had a blind devotion to public opinion because they never viewed themselves as a political party. Republicans began as the opposition party to the first administration, they had always acted as a party whether they admitted it or not. When Jefferson had won power, Federalists were already dissipated enough as to never constitute an opposition party. It was not the "middling" class as Wood assumes that killed the Federalists, but the fact that Federalists never saw themselves as a political party.

Woods two chapters on the law (11 and 12) represent the two strongest chapters in the book. Beginning with his proper distinction of colonial judges against their English counterparts, Wood explains the extraordinary power that has always existed in the U.S. judiciary except under the Articles of Confederation. With the adoption of the Constitution and the Federalist administration, Federalist judges began to bring unified law to all people in the U.S. Wood rightly credit John Marshall as bringing judicial review to the U.S. by using an ex post facto explanation in the Marbury v. Madison case. Woods shows how Marshall treated the constitution as law. Fundamental law to be sure, but law nonetheless, and subject to judges' review as all laws are. Wood also correctly points out the significance of the Dartmouth College case. It single handedly did more to protect the "middling" class and the money making endeavors than any legislation passed by a Republican. Once again, it seems, that Federalist policy and decision making is in fact what allows this "middling" class to emerge, and not the high minded idealism of Thomas Jefferson. In fact, I am hard pressed to find one piece of legislation cited by Wood and enacted by Jeffersonian-Republicans that helped this "middling" class emerge that Wood is so sure was dependent upon them.

With the chapters in Republican Diplomacy and the War of 1812 not even a scholar of Wood's stature can prevaricate enough to hide the disaster of the Republican administrations.
1) Allowing the Bank of the United States to expire was a total failure and had to be re chartered
2) Decreasing the size of the Army and Navy in 1810 was not justifiable
3) Non importation and embargo act were abject failures
4) War of 1812 resulted in the burning of the U.S. Capital and status quo ante
In every case Wood attempts to use the idealism of Madison and Jefferson as a buttress against their poor decisions, even going so far as to compare their trade sanctions with modern day ones (page 633), but it runs rather shallow. Expecting the reader to level out the trade sanctions from a nascent economy to those exercised by the megalith that is the modern U.S. economy is a bit much.

In the end, the conclusion Wood reaches- that Thomas Jefferson was almost singly responsible for the emergence of the new American- simply does not follow from the 738 pages of fact he presented. The heroes that come through are George Washington, Alexander Hamilton and John Marshall.

Style:

Wood's writing is superb and his scholarship is sound. Although I disagree with his conclusions, there is no mistaking the quality of his work. The simple readability of this work is amazing for a tome of this length and depth. To be sure, it is not a simple breeze through over the weekend, but it is not so arduous that you dread having to pick it up each night. Indeed, it is a joy to pick up night after night and read. I took almost 12 pages of notes as I read this book and welcome any comments. I put time and effort into this review, and do recommend this book even though I give it only 3 stars. I hope you find this review helpful even if you do not agree.

Thesis and Summary:

In this, the 8th volume of Oxford's History of the United States, Gordon Wood weighs in on the Washington through Madison administrations, and gives a broad perspective analysis of the burgeoning American and American culture. Indeed, Wood's thesis can be summed up to say that by 1815 America was a thoroughly transformed nation from the one that initiated the revolution in 1776: a nation that had gone from gentleman leaders to a far more inclusive- albeit brutish- democracy.

Woods begins his journey to American Democracy by explaining the "middling" class of Americans that emerged with the ratification of the Constitution. This new class of Americans did not personify the classical notion of virtue that Federalists found necessary to lead. They were a people possessed of a native congeniality for the sake of prosperity. They were fond of money making (and good at it), they weren't Harvard or Princeton educated, and they voted. It is this middling class that is the protagonist (for lack of better word) of Wood's work. He sees their growth as the Federalists' death and he sees Jefferson as their chief advocate and the man responsible for their ascendance to power. Herein one finds Wood's bias. He simply adores Thomas Jefferson and makes bare faced obeisance to him at every turn of the page it seems while looking to traduce Federalists as much as possible. As I read this substantial work, I couldn't help but to constantly contrast it with Elkins and McKitrick's "The Age of Federalism." Both works are monumental in scope, but one is sympathetic to Federalists and the other to Republicans.

Chapters 3, 4 and 5 together offer a perplexing and contradictory view of the Washington administration. One the one hand, Alexander Hamilton and the Federalists ignored the middle class as beneath them. On the other, it was Alexander Hamilton's policies that brought tremendous prosperity that led to Federalist popularity in the wake of the Jay and Pickney treaties and the Whiskey Rebellion. Indeed, throughout the work, Wood never discredits the policies of the Federalists; he just merely gives them no credit for those policies.

In chapter 3, The Federalist Program, Wood makes the somewhat dubious claim that Hamilton did not have the foresight to see the future of American manufacturing. I would think that both of Hamilton's foremost biographers (McDonald and Chernow) would strongly disagree, as would Hamilton himself. Further, Wood makes an attempt to characterize Federalist policies as a Walpoleon spoils system without admitting that this was the first federal government instituted in the United States and suffered the exigencies of such: authority, legitimacy and revenue. Should they have appointed people who wanted nothing more than to undermine federal power in favor of state power? Also, for all of Wood's conjecture of a spoils system, no evidence is presented of a corrupt appointment process.

Chapter 4 shows us the emergence of Jefferson and Madison as the opposition to Federalist policy. They fight the assumption of state debts, the chartering of the Bank of the United States (which they let expire in 1810), and Hamilton's stance on foreign policy. As has become a common theme by this point in the book, Wood manages to find a way to justify Jefferson and Madison's actions with Philip Freneau while he has the time to take umbrage with the tone used by Alexander Hamilton (page 154) in totally destroying Jefferson's erroneous fears of his financial system. It really came as no surprise that Wood came down softly on the Republicans in respect to the Genet mission as well.

Wood does a much better job with the Adams administration than his predecessor. Adams fits the Federalist mold that Woods has pigeonholed them all into. He was a monarchist, a self appointed aristocrat and someone who couldn't have foreseen a use for Wood's "middling" class. Wood's makes an excellent case in chapter 6 that the disinterested aristocrat was not possible in America. American land speculation was terribly risky and none sans John Jay could hope to uphold the image of the landed English gentry. He also hits the nail on the head with the "X,Y, Z Affair" and the "Quasi War." He rightly concludes that Federalist gains were offset by their paranoid fears of the "Jacobian" influence. He does not, however, identify the split in the Federalist camp soon enough. Some time before Adams' failed second run at the Presidency the Federalists had already split between he and Hamilton. Hamilton was, in fact, vehemently against the Alien and Sedition Acts and had already brought many Federalists away from Adams.

Having done away with the Federalists, Wood now turns to Jefferson. Certainly no one writing since Dumas Malone has had a better grasp of Jefferson, but Wood's admiration of the man simply leads to what only can be viewed as equivocating on many points. It seems Woods gives Jefferson credit for the entire Revolution on page 287! Wood does correctly point out Republican ideology on page 311 when he quotes Wartman. When Wartman claims that public opinion leads to egalitarian truth, he basically is laying the groundwork for justifying anything. Of course, this is the same ideology that would be used to justify slavery some decades later. It is this that killed the Federalists. They never had a blind devotion to public opinion because they never viewed themselves as a political party. Republicans began as the opposition party to the first administration, they had always acted as a party whether they admitted it or not. When Jefferson had won power, Federalists were already dissipated enough as to never constitute an opposition party. It was not the "middling" class as Wood assumes that killed the Federalists, but the fact that Federalists never saw themselves as a political party.

Woods two chapters on the law (11 and 12) represent the two strongest chapters in the book. Beginning with his proper distinction of colonial judges against their English counterparts, Wood explains the extraordinary power that has always existed in the U.S. judiciary except under the Articles of Confederation. With the adoption of the Constitution and the Federalist administration, Federalist judges began to bring unified law to all people in the U.S. Wood rightly credit John Marshall as bringing judicial review to the U.S. by using an ex post facto explanation in the Marbury v. Madison case. Woods shows how Marshall treated the constitution as law. Fundamental law to be sure, but law nonetheless, and subject to judges' review as all laws are. Wood also correctly points out the significance of the Dartmouth College case. It single handedly did more to protect the "middling" class and the money making endeavors than any legislation passed by a Republican. Once again, it seems, that Federalist policy and decision making is in fact what allows this "middling" class to emerge, and not the high minded idealism of Thomas Jefferson. In fact, I am hard pressed to find one piece of legislation cited by Wood and enacted by Jeffersonian-Republicans that helped this "middling" class emerge that Wood is so sure was dependent upon them.

With the chapters in Republican Diplomacy and the War of 1812 not even a scholar of Wood's stature can prevaricate enough to hide the disaster of the Republican administrations.
1) Allowing the Bank of the United States to expire was a total failure and had to be re chartered
2) Decreasing the size of the Army and Navy in 1810 was not justifiable
3) Non importation and embargo act were abject failures
4) War of 1812 resulted in the burning of the U.S. Capital and status quo ante
In every case Wood attempts to use the idealism of Madison and Jefferson as a buttress against their poor decisions, even going so far as to compare their trade sanctions with modern day ones (page 633), but it runs rather shallow. Expecting the reader to level out the trade sanctions from a nascent economy to those exercised by the megalith that is the modern U.S. economy is a bit much.

In the end, the conclusion Wood reaches- that Thomas Jefferson was almost singly responsible for the emergence of the new American- simply does not follow from the 738 pages of fact he presented. The heroes that come through are George Washington, Alexander Hamilton and John Marshall.

Style:

Wood's writing is superb and his scholarship is sound. Although I disagree with his conclusions, there is no mistaking the quality of his work. The simple readability of this work is amazing for a tome of this length and depth. To be sure, it is not a simple breeze though over the weekend, but it is not so arduous that you dread having to pick it up each night. It is as joy to pick up night after night and read. I took almost 12 pages of notes as I read this book and welcome any comments. I put time and effort into this review, and do recommend this book even though I give it only 3 stars. I hope you find this review helpful even if you do not agree.

This book is a disappointment coming from such a prestigious historian. Once again the evil Hamiltonians are portrayed as intent on establishing a government based on oppression and greed. Unfortunately, Wood's account of Hamilton and the Federalists is on par with the likes of Claude Bowers and Dumas Malone. It is truly astonishing that this simplistic view of the past persists at the highest levels of American historical scholarship.

Is there anyone today writing better histories of this country than Gordon Wood? If so I certainly don't know about it. This is third of Wood's books that I've read, and like the others, it combines a tremendously involving narrative with first-rate historical accuracy. Wood has the knack of writing histories that could be read as popular works or as college texts.

I say I've read it- but in truth, I'm only halfway through. I've had Empire of Liberty for a month now, but there's so much here that it's impossible to just breeze through it. I'll read a section, and then put it down for a while and think about what I've read. Sometimes I'll go back and reread an earlier section to refresh my memory. It's that kind of book.

Most of us in the US are familiar enough with the early history of the country, up through the Revolution- but then there's usually a big hole between that time and the Civil War. There's the War of 1812, of course... but then we start drawing a blank. Empire of Liberty covers that critical period just after the Revolution when the country had independence, but not much more. There was little or no industry, not a lot of capital, and some serious debts owed to foreign nations- primarily France ($11M) and various Americans who had supplied the war effort ($24M). Adjusted for inflation, that's about half a billion dollars in today's money.

"Empire" covers that period right after the war up to 1815, a time when a great many decisions were being made about what kind of nation this would be. There were those like Jefferson, who had a vision of an agrarian state unlike Europe, and others who wanted the new country to be a player in world affairs. The debate on slavery was just beginning as well, with some favoring the manumission of all slaves (and perhaps their repatriation) while others had a strong interest in continuing this practice. At the same time there was the emergence of a uniquely American voice in art and literature that sought to distance itself from the English identity that had defined Americans prior to the revolution. Woods brings together all these narrative threads with his usual skill and art. Strongly recommended.

Gordon Wood's new contribution to the Oxford History of the United States is without any question one of the finest historical works that I have ever read. In fact, I learned so much from the preview copy that I received through the Amazon Vine Program that I intend to buy a copy when it is published next month. I've twice read his classic work THE RADICALISM OF THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION as well as his brief book THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION: A HISTORY.

This new work picks up at the point where most of Wood's other works have left off. His highly regarded history of the revolutionary period, THE CREATION OF THE AMERICAN REPUBLIC 1776-1787, for instance, ends with the creation of the American republic, but not the practical working out. If you are familiar with Wood's work the themes that he emphasizes are familiar. The dominant intellectual issues of the age were centered around the shift from a monarchial and hierarchical view of political society to one where republicanism and democracy dominated instead. Much of Wood's book is focused on the ideas of the age. The book is far more an entry in the history of ideas rather than a social history. Wood doesn't completely neglect social and cultural history, but far and away the emphasis of the book is on political history.

There are several crucial periods in American history, but it is hard to top a segment of American history that embraces the presidencies of Washington, Adams, Jefferson, and Madison; the Louisiana Purchase and the expedition of Lewis and Clark; John Marshall and his role in forming the American legal system; and the growing role of evangelical religion after its eclipse of the rational religion that was embraced by all of the Founders (Jefferson, for instance, was in despair at the emotional religion that dominated after his presidency, instead of the Unitarianism or Deism that he preferred).

The book contains a wonderful bibliographic essay that will prove invaluable to anyone wanting to expand their reading of the years following the ratification of the constitution. I've read pretty extensively in the period, including biographies of all of the major founders and several surveys of the period, but this is hands down the book I would recommend to anyone on the period if I can recommend only one book. Just as Wood's prior works had established him as perhaps the premiere historian of the revolutionary period, so this work should become the premiere historical work on the federalist and early democratic period.

I read a lot of history and was excited to read about a time period I am not overly familiar with. I can't really say anything bad about this book. The parts I read were good, but it is so dense and so academic it has a slight sedative effect on me. I put the review off for this book because I kept thinking I would get back to reading it but never did. I liked what I read and I skimmed around to a few sections that I was interested in, but the book is just too dense for enjoyable reading. However, I see a future for it as a reference for the time period.

This is a superb piece of work. The socio-rhetorical nature of the period is not generally well known. The atmosphere of the writing of the constitution is well evidenced through the writings of the intellectuals as well as the common man. The book is uniquely applicable in the current political environment of talking heads unencumbered by the roots and context in which the constitution was framed. The USA of the constitution writers and the USA of current interpretation are so vastly different as to be barely discernable in our execution of the founding fathers intentions.

There are many salient observations that will stick with you and make you smile as Democrats or Republicans claim ownership of various ideals. Before one rushes off to embrace Jeffersonian or Hamiltonian ideals, you might want to really understand the underpinnings. The author gets kudos for hiding or disguising any current bias or agenda. It's a `neutral ground' rendering.

The United States of America was a debated and decided name that was chosen because it was plural, vice calling it the singular Columbia as was debated. The constitutional intent was strongly states rights oriented with the Judiciary intended to insure states rights were not trampled by the Legislative and Executive branches. States were to have broad and independent powers as a matter of efficiency. It is difficult to come away from the history without a feeling of how absolutely irrelevant the founding tenets are in relation to modern federal government.

This is not the type of book you sit down to read in an afternoon. It's the type of book that makes you feel like you should be taking notes as you read it. Encompassing a brief but tumultuous quarter-century of US history, this book still counts 750 pages, not one of them wasted.

You will likely learn things you did not know before, or had forgotten. A great many things discussed by Gordon Wood are not covered even in outline in public school.

Look at the Table of Contents:

1. Experiment in Republicanism
2. A Monarchical Republic
3. The Federalist Program
4. The Emergence of the Jeffersonian Republican Party
5. The French Revolution in America
6. John Adams and the Few and he Many
7. The Crisis of 1798-1799
8. The Jeffersonian Revolution of 1800
9. Republican Society
10. The Jeffersonian West
11. Law and an Independent Judiciary
12. Chief Justice John Marshall and the Origins of Judicial Reeview
13. Republican Reforms
14. Between Slavery and Freedom
15. The Rising Glory of America
16. American Religion
17. Republican Democracy
18. The War of 1812
19. A World Within Themselves

Pages 739-752 are taken up by a Bibliographic Essay that is in itself a masterpiece, directing the reader towards useful books about various subjects raised in the book. For example, regarding the contentious issue of church and state, the author recommends "among the most moderate and sensible accounts" John H. Hutson, Religion and the Founding of the American Republic, among others. Such tidbits make future visits to the bookstore much easier.

I find this book a welcome relief from some of the more one-sided books out there today, in particular the "politically incorrect" series of right wing doggerel meant to pass as history. The author of this book looks critically the evidence rather than attempting to bend the facts to suit a theory. He pulls no punches in presenting this evidence, even when it is ugly and unflattering. We can look at the founding of our nation as a Utopian moment, but the reality was far more chaotic and uncertain.

Though this book is very detailed, and contains a wealth of information, the author's writing style is friendly and not at all difficult. Those who appreciate footnotes will be happy, and the maps are quite useful if not spectacularly beautiful. For example, on p. 480 you'll find "Average Time-Lag for Public Information from Philadelphia, 1790" and next to it, the same map for 1817.

If you go away from Empire of Liberty without having learned something new about the formative years of our Nation, I will be very much surprised. If you love American history, this book will be a delight to you and occupy and honored space on your bookshelf.

This is the third in the Oxford History of the United State Series that I've read. It is an excellent account by a respected scholar, and is tremendous in its depth and scope. It takes a period of American History which has received less attention that the more "dramatic" periods like the revolution and civil war, and reminds us how formative this period was.

In particular, it is easy to forget that the creation of the Constitution was a second revolution and arguably far more important to the country that we are today than the revolution of 1776. Our democracy and political parties were still inchoate, and grew out of the debates that existed in pre-Jacksonian America. It is good to see relatively neglected period get a "popular" history. One thing that I have liked about all of these Oxford books is that they have richly woven the social history of the time into the political history.

The reason for four stars rather than five is that, unfortunately, much as I have enjoyed this and the other books in this series that I have read, I found reading it to be a bit of a slog. It lacks the narrative thrust, perhaps because it needs better organization, of the best written history books. Well worth reading. Great reference source, but less than a great read.

At the outset of his history of the United States between 1789 - 1815, Professor Gordon Wood aptly describes his subject as "Rip Van Winkle's America". Van Winkle, of course, was the subject of a story by Washington Irving. Rip goes to sleep in his small village prior to the American Revolution and wakes up 20 years later to find a vastly changed United States, larger in size, disputatious, commercial, and substantially more democratic than had been the case when Rip began his long nap.

Rip's story captures the development of the United States as Wood portrays it. Beginning with the adoption of the Constitution, which was designed to cure the excesses of individualism and local government under the Articles of the Confederation, Wood sets a theme of the increasing democratization of the United States, as political parties come to play a central role in American life and Thomas Jefferson is elected president in 1800 on a platform of equality (for white males, in any event) and of a limited role for the central government. What Wood describes as the "middling" class as opposed to the budding aristocracy of Washington, Adams, Hamilton, and some of the other Founders, comes to set the dominant tone of American life.

Besides his use of the story of Rip Van Winkle, Wood sets the tone of his book with its title, "Empire of Liberty." Wood uses this term in a chapter titled "The Jeffersonian West" which describes the great expansion of the United States achieved by the Louisiana Purchase. Jefferson himself used the term "Empire of Liberty" to describe his vision for the United States. As Wood explains the term: "`Empire" for [Jefferson] did not mean the coercive domination of alien peoples; instead, it meant a nation of citizens spread over vast tracts of land. Yet the British Empire had given enough ambiguity to the term to lend some irony to Jefferson's use of it. (p. 357, footnote omitted) Thus, another theme of Wood's study, in addition to democratization, is expansion. The United States grows in both area in population. The United States gradually frees itself of domination by foreign powers, both Britain and France, to form a growing sense of itself as an independent nation. At the end of the book, following what appeared to be a lucky avoidance of disaster in the War of 1812, the United States became "A World within Themselves", to use the title of Wood's insightful concluding chapter, as Americans looked to themselves rather that to Europe as the source of trade, economic growth, and culture.

Wood's long, thorough, and comprehensive study develops his themes in a variety of ways. He offers a political history of the United States beginning with the administration of George Washington and concluding with the administration of the fourth president, James Madison, through the end of the War of 1812. The tumult of this early period frequently is overlooked by those with only a casual familiarity with American history. Political disagreements were sharp, personal, and violent. There were near-wars with both France in Britain and an actual war with Britain in 1812, which sealed the result of the first war - the American Revolution. The era included a disputed presidential election in 1800, the trial of Aaron Burr, Jefferson's first vice-president, for treason, the impeachment of a Supreme Court Justice and much else. With the possible exception of the Civil War era, the early days of the United States were the most difficult time in our history.

Wood also offers insightful chapters on the development of American law and of the doctrine of Judicial Review under the John Marshall, the Great Chief Justice. He spends substantial space on slavery, with both the North and the South tragically miscalculating how this institution would come close to destroying the nation. In several chapters, Wood explores the growth of American culture during this period, a subject frequently overlooked. And there is an important chapter on the Second Awakening and on American religion. Wood shows that the separation of government from denominations, gave religion in the United States its own non-hierarchical, individual character and strengthened it, rather than having religion become a casualty of the Enlightenment.

Wood offers stories of commercialization, ambition and drive on behalf of his "middling" class with anecdotes of people who succeeded through their own efforts and of some individuals, such as Robert Fulton whose inventiveness and ingenuity made them famous. With slavery and its treatment of the Indians, Wood shows that the United States had serious failings. But the overall tone of this book is one of optimism, exuberance and hope for the promise of America. Thomas Jefferson is the single most dominating figure in this book. For all Jefferson's faults and for all the changes in his historical reputation, Wood clearly admires Jefferson immensely. Jefferson's vision, with its goal of democratization and independence, forms the heart of Wood's picture of what the United States could become.

Wood's book is the latest in a series called the "Oxford History of the United States." Each of these volumes is written by a distinguished scholar and presents, for the specialist and the interested lay reader, important and informed studies of periods in our Nation's history. It is a rare pleasure to be able to study American history through these books and through the differing perspectives of their authors. Wood's book, with its scholarship and emphasis on the Jeffersonian vision, is an exemplary addition to this series. I am pleased to have had the opportunity to read and review "Empire of Liberty" here as part of the Amazon "Vine" program.

Robin Friedman

Simply put, "Empire of Liberty," by Gordon Wood, is one of the best books about the early years of the United States of America. It weighs in at well over 700 pages, yet somehow seems much shorter in length due to the manner in which the history being told seamlessly flows.

Gordon Wood tackles a lot in this book. Everything from politics and government to economy and social life is covered. The information is presented in a straightforward, but not boring, manner. Wood has a nice ability to interweave a lot of different aspects of society into a coherent whole, chapter after chapter. He clearly tries to offer a balanced and scholarly take on the subject matter. Although I am quite familiar with this period in American history, I learned a good deal of new information due to the attention to detail in the book. I am very impressed with the scope of "Empire of Liberty."


Wood's book will most certainly land on a lot of required reading lists of college professors. In my estimation it is now the definitive work on the early years of the American Republic. Refreshingly, there is no political agenda here, or an attempt at gaining attention with poorly supported revisionism. "Empire of Liberty" is a thoroughly-researched book that pulls together a bevy of information and weaves it into a highly readable book that sheds a lot of light on early American life and the foundations of American government.

I should admit my biases first. I'm a huge fan of the Oxford History of the United States series, and once it's complete, it will be an important (and highly readable) resource for anyone interested in American history. I'm also a huge fan of Gordon Wood, his books, and his general approach to history. Winner of the Bancroft Prize for his CREATION OF THE AMERICAN REPUBLIC and the Pulitzer for RADICALISM OF THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION, he is exactly the historian I would want writing the 1789-1815 volume of this series.

From my own experiences with being taught history in school, the early republic always seemed to receive short shrift. After covering the Revolution and the drafting of the Constitution in some detail, we breezed through the most of the subsequent years, covering only a few signal events in each presidential administration -- the Whiskey Rebellion in Washington's, for example, the Alien and Sedition Acts in Adams's, and the Louisiana Purchase in Jefferson's -- before slowing down to focus on the War of 1812.

With narrative verve and solid scholarship, Wood deals with all of these events (and many, many more), placing them in the political, social, cultural, economic context of the period. It is a joy to watch the story of the young republic unfold in Wood's telling, as the Constitution took root in all areas of American life -- areas that were also changing as the result of territorial and population growth, religious sentiments, and other factors.

(Anyone looking for further reading on the first half of the period covered would do well to check out Elkins's and McKitrick's magisterial AGE OF FEDERALISM, also published by Oxford though not in this series.)

"Empire of Liberty" is an examination of the political, social, and economic changes that the United States underwent between the signing of the Constitution in 1789 and the signing of the Treaty of Ghent in 1815, by Gordon S. Wood, scholar of the American Revolutionary era and recipient of the 1993 Pulitzer Prize for history for "The Radicalism of the American Revolution". As Prof. Wood has extensive background in the subject of the early republic, he has well-formed opinions about people, events, and their implications. This volume, like others in Oxford's "History of the United States" series, takes a middle road ideologically. My own knowledge of the social history of this period is greater than the political, and I don't always agree with Wood's assessment. But that is the nature of history: it's gone, and future generations are left to emphasize what we will.

"Empire of Liberty" follows the transition from the 18th to 19th centuries, the abandonment of the Revolution's Enlightenment, rationalist principles for a more commercial, religious nation that would be driven by its middle class to become an industrial power. In many ways, the Founders, the men whose ambitions and ideas created the United States, are left behind. But Wood starts when the ideologies of the Revolution are first coming into question but still foremost in people's minds, in 1789, when an excess of democracy prompted calls for a national constitution. He follows the often acrimonious battles between Hamiltonian Federalists and Jeffersonian Republicans. And, just as the Republicans win the battle to define the character of this nation and its government, they are seemingly overtaken by the fruits of the their own ideas.

Though it occasionally gets philosophical, this is primarily a tour of the political events and ideas of the period and secondly a look at what was going on socially and economically. There was massive migration westward, to the extent that some feared that the country was emptying out and Americans were turning their backs on civilization. And nearly the entire period played out against a background of world war between Britain and France, which, just as it had profoundly affected the outcome of the Revolutionary War a decade before, was to involve the US in a Quasi-War with France and a genuine war with Britain in 1812. We also see the nation's practice and attitude toward slavery changing during that time, only to become more reactionary in the South, creating a cultural divide that proved insurmountable.

"Empire of Liberty"'s 19 chapters are semi-chronological. Each is dedicated to a different subject, so the chronology doubles back on itself sometimes. In simple terms, these are topics that Wood covers: the circumstances under which the Constitution replaced the Articles of Confederation, the Federalist economic agenda, the emergence of a Republican opposition party, the French Revolution in America, the Adams presidency, Quasi-War with France, Jefferson presidency and agenda, increasing democratic and middling-oriented social structure, the great westward expansion, the independent judiciary (Supreme Court), origins of judicial review, slavery in America, the Arts, religion, diplomatic policy, the War of 1812. You get all of this in 800 pages, so it is not comprehensive on any subject. It's a fine reference for fundamentals, though, and there is an excellent bibliographic essay in the back which you can consult for further reading.

In this volume, an Oxford History that fills a gap between the Revolutionary period and the early industrial years, Gordon Wood provides us with a multifaceted story. It's not just a linear story of how the U.S. evolved from its new Constitutional rebirth in 1789 through the end of the War of 1812, which, he tells us, definitely broke the U.S. from its British cultural and civic roots.

It's also a story of many beginnings in American culture and society. We learn that the Federalist movement was not so much a party as a social order, the remnants of an aristocratic way of life exemplified by Washington and Adams, a life and culture that would be subsumed under a republican mindset, a "Republican Party" as Wood terms it (later "Democratic-Republican", later simply Democratic). Indeed, he concludes, at the end of this period, Americans "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 they now lived in a different world, a bustling Democratic world."

Wood also shows how America interacted, not just with its aristocracy and the aristocratic outer world evoked by Britain. We see how the French Revolution both was affected by, and affected, ours. We see how by 1815, with the re-established old order in Europe, that America would become unique, the only democratic republic in the world of the Holy Alliance. We see how, economically, politically and otherwise, it would become a world of its own. We see how the "Jeffersonian West" of the Louisiana Purchase would also devolve from Europe, and emerge, clearly so, as early as 1815, and now the way west would open.

Wood does not neglect the fact that, although post-Federalist America did profess a new equality, it was not so for those who were native American, or women, or slaves. Indeed, the Framers, he shows, seemed to think that slavery would wither, when by 1815 it would become entrenched, a clever observation, but he adds that it maintained a slaveholder aristocracy that was already becoming marginalized and defensive.

He also shows some of the other threads beginning in the Jeffersonian period, the rise of a uniquely American religious culture, freed of the Church of England, that would grow westward and more vigorous. He shows how an independent U.S. judiciary, and the principle of judicial review, was not a given but indeed a development that would rise during the period. "Precisely because of the exuberantly democratic nature of American politics, the judiciary right from the nation's beginning acquired a special power that it has never lost." He shows how this spirited order would drive the early entrepreneurs and canal builders in advance of an industrial age. And, he tells these stories in terms that laypeople would find illuminating - and cohesive.

There's more, but suffice to say that the research seems to be impeccable, and that the writing clear and fascinating. This book is literature and history, and is a worthy addition to the Oxford History series.

Highly recommend.

Gordon Wood's brilliant new study of the earliest years of the American republic is a most worthy addition to the marvelously comprehensive Oxford History of the United States series. Like its immediate predecessor, From Colony to Superpower: U.S. Foreign Relations Since 1776 (Oxford History of the United States), this new volume in the series takes advantage of the most recent scholarship in painting a compelling new synthesis of American history. Wood, of course, is one of the deans of American historical studies, and this work is really a kind of valedictory of his remarkable career.

Among the highlights of the book for this reader is the marvelously recounted rise of American partisan politics. The seeming naivete of the founding fathers in matters of party politics is really astounding. To them--and particularly to George Washington--political parties were anathema, and yet by the Adams and Jefferson administrations, the United States had descended to what must be the nadir of American politics, with more mudslinging in a period of a dozen years than we may have seen in the two succeeding centuries.

Wood also provides great insight into the rise of military power and in the tragic descent of the republic as a haven for slaveholders--a slide which lead inexorably to the civil war.

This is history at its finest.

Gordon Wood is all history all the time. This book is wonderfully written and sets the reader into the timeline of 1789 to 1815. The book actually starts a little earlier with a very informative discussion about the Constitution that was created during the summer of 1787. Wood opens up the book with a thoughtful chapter on Republicanism in the New World and defined the thoughts and societal norms. It has always been difficult for me to read older books and articles from the 18th Century because I didn't understand their thought process. This first chapter helps in that respect tremendously. It also bridges the gap between the creation of the Constitution and the timeline for this book in the overall Oxford History of the United States.

From there Wood takes us on a tour of the first sitting of the Congress. What they did, what they voted on, how they acted and how utterly helpless many of them felt since they were starting with a completely blank slate. Author Gordon Wood takes us on a journey of the trials and politics of a fledgling nation. It is fascinating to imagine as Wood tells the stories of Hamilton and the need for a Central Bank, a superior Army, and basically his insubordination with President Adams. While Madison, once a strongly committed Federalist, changes politics to join ranks with Jefferson as the first signs of a Party system take hold. The "hows and whys" of our early national Founding Fathers are laid out as they struggle with their inner prejudices towards a Monarchical system even while attempting to allow the Common Man to become a part of the system that had so long been closed. This reader had no idea that the tides for and against our leaders were so whipsawed at this stage. In high school, it was basically taught that everyone was pulling in the same direction. This is certainly not so, and the stories behind the scenes are laid out without opinion by Wood.

Fascinating were the years when Washington stepped down and the Country was for the first time without a nationally known entity for leadership. The politics of the 1790's and the 1990's are very much similar and without such writing as Mr. Wood has provided, I'm sure that I would still be ignorant of this. The interplay between the "upcoming commoner" and the already existing aristocrat makes for interesting reading. Personal affronts were often settled by duels and fisticuffs on the Congressional floor.

Other topics covered are: Jefferson's rise to power and the influence that that French Revolution had on the new Republican Party, the Louisiana Purchase, Marshall's decision in Marbury v. Madison - the first time the Supreme Court declared a act of Congress to be unconstitutional, and then finally the War of 1812. So many firsts are uncovered and explained in detail along with the growing pains that each of these historic moments caused. They build a sense of wonder in the reader as to how this unique but fragile Constitution has held the United States together through it all.

I am by no means as expert as many of the other reviewers on this topic, but as a newly enthralled reader of history, I thoroughly enjoyed this book. However, it is not for the person looking for a quick hit of history. This is a length tome, but the reading is quite pleasurable.

Somewhere along the way, historians quit writing strong narrative history, thankfully some still know how to do narrative history well and contribute to the scholarship. In "Empire of Liberty" Gordon Wood continues his story of early America with a gripping narrative of the development of the republic. Wood stresses the continued radical nature of the American experiment as it struggles with political birth pangs amid the division between Federalists and Jeffersonian Republicans. Most impressive are his tightly drawn portraits of both the well known and obscure. I found his portrayal of Aaron Burr particularly telling. Despite its length, the books reads easily and quickly draws the reader into the very complicated world of early national America. Very well written and highly recommended, it would make an excellent textbook for a course on this era.

Following the conclusion of the secretive Constitutional Convention in 1787, a woman approached Dr. Franklin to inquire if the new government would be a republic or a monarchy. Franklin's famous reply, "A republic if you can keep it" is illustrative of the many uncertainties which loomed over the American Republic. By the end of the War of 1812 America was able to believe that it was entitled "to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them" as the Declaration of Independence had so boldly asserted.

The United States in a mere twenty-six years created a national government with three separate branches, waged a war against threats to American shipping (and thus projected American naval power on a global scale), expanded not just west of the Alleghenies, but to the coast of Oregon and Washington state, waged a war at home against the most powerful nation on earth, established the principle of judicial review of Acts of Congress, enforced the federal rights of taxation with an assembled army, and amended the Constitution with the quintessential guarantees of personal freedom.

Gordon S. Wood, professor of history emeritus at Brown, has written a history of this period which will forever be considered a classic. No detail has seemed to escape his attention or interest. We learn that Adams (of al people) predicted that English would replace French as the language of diplomacy and that Noah Webster believed that American english would be within a century and a half the universal language of commerce. We read of the distrust of the courts by the citizenry and the forces were brought which to eliminate them. We witness the titanic struggles between the agrarian party (Jefferson's Republicans now known as the Democratic Party) and the manufacturers and bankers led ideologically by Hamilton. We watch Jefferson struggle with the role of religion within the newly established government.

As a lawyer and a history major, I have recognized the significance of this period in the early days of the Republic. However, I have never seen a work that so seamlessly has integrated the political, economic, diplomatic, jurisprudential, military and social history of this time. Like Adams I will make a modest prediction. Within ten years this volume will appear on the summer reading lists of every prep school in America, and on the bookshelves of every history major.

I am well familiar with this period of American History, maybe too familiar in some regards, but I must say, Gordon S. Wood has been able to take what I know and enhance my views, positively/negatively, and that is not an easy task. It's the sheer amount of work and research on the subject at hand that makes Woods history of the Early Republic come alive.

Woods open the events of the book with a killer setting, Versailles. A place so dripping with excess and flippant rule that everything in itself lends its excessive gaudiness to the nature of it's country. It works brilliantly, setting up the numbness and ambivalence the newly developing U.S. felt towards our own pretensions of splendor and excess. It's a brilliant opening that keeps flowing through the rest of the book. How the U.S. always fought not only its self but the a predetermined notion of high-society and aristocracy.

There are the usual list of players from Jefferson to Hamilton but what Woods does in abundance is not only fill in the motive for key maneuvering on the part of these men but their ultimate goals. And to drive his point home, there are huge backings of evidence to support him at every key moment in which you feel that their intuition was correct or misguided.

At well over 700 pages, Empire of Liberty, is a solid read. And at times, a bit of a gossip monger, but all of it helps to transport the reader. I would be lying to say I found fault with this book. It had made the rounds from my husband to my stepfather and it has garnered the same praise from us all, it's one heck of a winning work and brilliant writing on a subject that we all know is impossible to summarize in the pages that it has been given.

Other reviewers have provided thoughtful and comprehensive reviews of the content of this excellent book. I'll focus my own on the book as a Good Read. It's perhaps the best on U.S. history that I've read since Daniel Howe's What God Hath Wrought, the next one in the Oxford series, which has the same virtues. It is beautifully written and flows well; the style is precise and compact rather than elegant, but a model of measured exposition. The examples mesh beautifully into its superbly modulated flow of argument. Just about every paragraph has a point to make that is convincing and clear. This slows it down in some ways, all good ones. First, it's long and it will take months rather than days to go through and it needs active engagement and reflection by the reader. It's not skimming material. Second, it builds its picture in a way that precludes fast skipping.

It doesn't have an axe to grind. It's a fairly centrist analysis that has no debunking and takes the leading political figures as essentially honorable individuals - almost all male, of course - working their way honestly to make the transition from the society and social hierarchies they were brought up in to the creation of a unique republic that fused the many interests and differences of American diversity. He places less emphasis than Howe on the economic and social dynamics underlying the cancerous issue of slavery, though his chapter, Between Slavery and Freedom, is a fine summary of how and why the Revolutionary leaders were so misguided in their conviction that it would just fade away. The last paragraph of the over 700 pages concludes that "The Civil War was the climax of a tragedy that was preordained from the time of the Revolution."

He shows how the new "middling class" became so pivotal in the shaping of a new society. He talks of this as the momentous social struggle that underlay so much of the moves to create a republic of law and freedom but also of liberal values. There is a superb balance between the political, social and judicial portrayals and a downplaying of the Great Men psychodramas, with a more useful analysis of their beliefs and intentions. The book is perhaps a little light on economic development and its political dimensions.

As other reviewers note, it requires a fairly solid prior knowledge of US history. It's not academic in the pejorative sense but neither is it a quick guide. It assumes that the reader has a fair understanding, for instance, of the personalities and biographies of Washington, Madison, Jefferson, Adams and Hamilton (whose restoration as a major figure seems to be a common thread in recent scholarship.) I would not expect students or casual readers to enjoy it. I am not a specialist in the field, though I read widely and often in it. I found that it crystallized and threw new light on what I already knew and pointed to many aspects of the period that I did not know.

I hope you get as much out of it as I have. It's a model of how to fuse "popular" and scholarly history.

Beautifully written and interesting to boot. This brings in a wealth of historical material into play to describe the surprising gifts let out of the box opened by the founding fathers. Did they get what they were expecting? No. Could anyone have suspected what would come of it? Are some of the predictions still liable to come true? It is instantly pertinent to our present situation.

Gordon Wood has written a superb history of the early American republic. A time that is not often covered in great detail. Still, I find that he tries too hard to include all possible areas of the period and as such he misses the chance to highlight the major achievements in detail, in favor of covering all aspects of the era. The book is notable for explaining the pains of birth that the early republic went through did not end with the constitution or even the election of 1800.

I found his writing on the emergence of the American persona as the most interesting aspect of this work. Still, it is nearly stilted as he chooses to write about it over several chapters rather then focus on one chapter and giving it a complete examination. While there are a number of tremendous anecdotes and Mr. Wood did his homework for this book, I find that the deluge of data is often confusing and forces the reader to go back and check out again and again where this train of thought first began.

This is a very good work, but be prepared to take at least a week to read it.

Americans are fortunate to have many heroic figures in the period when the US came to exist. The difficulty of simply making people like Washington, Jefferson and Hamilton into purely heroic figures is that they existed in a terribly contentious age. This book describes a process by which the American Republic actually came to function.

The things that emerged around the turn of the 19th century, as issues, continue to this day. Who is really supposed to govern this country? Is it elites, people trained to govern, or simply those who represent the everyday interests of working men (mostly then) and women? The first great battle, perhaps, is whether popular Democracy can work at all, or whether America may simply need a king. That king could have been Washington, and some assumed he would be the monarch. But, popular Democracy did emerge.

In the first quarter century, the author seems to say, the nation of ideas vaguely disappeared and a commercial entity emerged. The idea of a nation preoccupied with wealth continues today. The Empire of Liberty was Jefferson's view of America controlling (or at least influencing) a vast territory. In this period, the US started on the road to gaining a vast continental geography. But the price of commercial energy, and the need to absorb new land, was extreme tension with the Natives, and a failure to do much about slavery. America became about achievement, about success. Students were pushed along not by the lash, but by a desire to achieve, the author says. The structure of the American economy found a synergy with the structure of government. Newspapers were about commerce and about politics. The cotton economy of the South differed greatly from the urban economies of the rest of the country, and the South grew apart. For a half century after the period covered in this book, these clouds grow darker and darker. The economic progress was mixed, everywhere. There were opportunities on the frontier, but industrialization tended to limit some kinds of advance. How much reform is enough, and what is the basis for reform?

The detail in this book is great, but the flow of the narrative carries all this factual information along extremely well. This is a readable history with a compelling story, validated by the depth of research.

The first half of the book, roughly, is the story of men and ideas, and how a country emerged, a country with tremendous momentum, despite the flaws. The second half is somewhat more conceptual, and more of a social history. The Republic has emerged. There is a sense of stability. The gigantic men and their titanic struggles are not really there so much, though the concept of how judicial review emerged is covered in a full chapter.

If there is a hero of this book it is certainly Jefferson. Washington may have held the country together, and given dignity to a government with little in the way of legitimacy. But Jefferson honed the notion of popular government, a country not run by a governing class. The British returned to monarchy after a failed attempt to move beyond a king. The French killed their king, got anarchy followed by a dictator, and then the king was restored from without. You have to forgive America for some of the flaws, glory in people making the thing work.

For anyone interested in knowing how this country was formed and what made it succeed, this is a great, if serious, book.

It took me a while to notice the subtle paradox of this book's title: "Empire of Liberty." But this paradox - the struggle between building an empire and maintaining the people's liberties - seems to be the "main theme" of Wood's sweeping history of the founding period of the United States.

The book begins right after the Constitutional Convention (spending very little time talking about how the constitution came to being). Instead, the book starts with the election of George Washington and the Federalist vision. Special emphasis is placed on Hamilton and his ideas for creating a political economy similar to that of Britain (national bank, consolidation of state debt into national debt) etc. Going into the Adams presidency (a more difficult election than it appeared), we see the Federalist vision culminate with the disasterous Alien and Sedition Acts.

Through all of this, we witness the slow and steady build in republican opposition (led mostly by Madison and Jefferson). The opposition to the Federalist vision of a strong national government perhaps reached its zenith with the Alien and Sedition acts, leading to the very contentious election of 1800, when republican Thomas Jefferson became president. Wood spends a good amount of time discussing not only the political shift to republicanism, but the social and cultural shift towards a radical egalitarianism and emphasis on democracy over aristocracy (which Federalists preferred).

The rest of the book deals mostly with the rise of this radical type of republicanism and the difficulties it faced (he people not always being the angels that Jefferson imagined them to be). Federalists, of course, still had glimmers of power, particularly in the judicial branch. Several chapters are devoted to "law and an independent judiciary" and the "origins of judicial review" (both of which were opposed by the republicans, who thought that the judiciary should be elected). The book culminates with the war of 1812 and its subsequent resolution.

All in all, this is a book of very large scope. Wood goes into painstaking detail about the history of all aspects of the American founding (political, economic, judicial, cultural). As such, this book is certainly not for the casual reader, but will serve as an excellent reference for he or she who is interested in putting the founding period under the microscope. (It should also be mentioned that while Wood focuses much on the struggle between Federalists and Republicans, he is very unbiased and neutral, painting neither side as the "correct" or "superior" one.)

Much recomended for serious buffs and academics. Readers wanting a more casual or popular treatment can certainly do better than this sweeping book.