It looked a lot prettier in those Gilbert Stuart and John Trumbull paintings. If there's an overall theme to Joseph Ellis's 2000 book "Founding Brothers", it's that the United States was tempered as much by internal conflict as by war with Great Britain.

Ellis's approach deals with the aftermath of the American Revolution, post-Constitution, in six drawn-out narratives exploring various facets of the often-feuding Founding Fathers. He begins with the most famous and deadly of them, when Aaron Burr, then a sitting vice president, killed Alexander Hamilton for expressing disapproval of Burr's character. It was a duel, agreed to by both men, but a strange way for Burr to uphold his honor.

Ellis's treatment feels weak. As a story-teller, he muddies the waters by flipping back and forth in time, losing the suspense of "Interview at Weehawken" by teasing out various pet theories about the reason for the duel. As a historian, he misses some vital, commonly-known points, like Burr's gloating right after the duel and conjecture that Hamilton's pistol shot down a tree branch, which if true could confirm he had no intention of shooting Burr that day.

Ellis's middle chapters take on the question of how Washington, D.C. became the nation's capital; why slavery was allowed to remain in effect for so long; and what Washington was thinking when he either penned, or merely signed, his famous Farewell Address.

All of these chapters are readable, occasionally poignant. You get a sense of Washington as the supreme stoic in his standing behind an unpopular treaty. "Clouds may and doubtless often will in the vicissitudes of events, hover over political concerns, but a steady adherence to these principles will not only dispel but render our prospects brighter by such temporary obscurities," he writes.

But there is a lot of nothing in them, too. The chapter about Washington, D.C., "The Dinner", for all its scene-setting, doesn't establish any such dinner, to talk over locating the Capital and assuming state debts, really took place at all. Ellis presents the slavery question well enough, but struggles with coherent storyline. The idea was the South didn't want to end slavery, and the North didn't want the South to leave the Union. But as with the Dinner, there is some mystery as to the particulars which Ellis doesn't dispel.

The last two chapters of "Founding Brothers" give it life, memorableness, and probably that Pulitzer. It focuses on two Founders, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams, in kind of a bookend way to Burr and Hamilton. Jefferson and Adams also had a bitter fallout, but patched things up and corresponded over their last 14 years. Adams is portrayed more positively, which seems to me fitting, but not without his peevish flaws. Jefferson was a hypocrite on slavery and a consummate fabulist about everything, but it was hard to hold that too much against him when one of those inventions was America.

Ellis presents the pair as the yin and yang of early America; Adams earthy and rooted to reality, Jefferson the dreamer. Jefferson had the ability to construct an edifice, Adams the cussedness to look for structural flaws with brilliant argumentation. In the end, you had a sturdy dwelling, but some hard feelings it took the two a while to resolve.

They did resolve it, though, holding out hope for Americans decades and centuries hence that what unites us can overcome what divides us. It's a nice lesson, presented subtly, but feels more tacked on than it should in this somewhat unfocused book.

It looked a lot prettier in those Gilbert Stuart and John Trumbull paintings. If there's an overall theme to Joseph Ellis's 2000 book "Founding Brothers", it's that the United States was tempered as much by internal conflict as by war with Great Britain.

Ellis's approach deals with the aftermath of the American Revolution, post-Constitution, in six drawn-out narratives exploring various facets of the often-feuding Founding Fathers had. He begins with the most famous and deadly of them, when Aaron Burr, then a sitting vice president, killed Alexander Hamilton for expressing disapproval of Burr's character. It was a duel, agreed to by both men, but a strange way for Burr to uphold his honor.

Ellis's treatment feels weak. As a story-teller, he muddies the waters by flipping back and forth in time, losing the suspense of "Interview at Weehawken" by teasing out various pet theories about the reason for the duel. As a historian, he misses some vital, commonly-known points, like Burr's gloating right after the duel and conjecture that Hamilton's pistol shot down a tree branch, which if true could confirm he had no intention of shooting Burr that day.

Ellis's middle chapters take on the question of how Washington, D.C. became the nation's capital; why slavery was allowed to remain in effect for so long; and what Washington was thinking when he either penned, or merely signed, his famous Farewell Address.

All of these chapters are readable, occasionally poignant. You get a sense of Washington as the supreme stoic in his standing behind an unpopular treaty. "Clouds may and doubtless often will in the vicissitudes of events, hover over political concerns, but a steady adherence to these principles will not only dispel but render our prospects brighter by such temporary obscurities," he writes.

But there is a lot of nothing in them, too. The chapter about Washington, D.C., "The Dinner", for all its scene-setting, doesn't establish any such dinner, to talk over locating the Capital and assuming state debts, really took place at all. Ellis presents the slavery question well enough, but struggles with coherent storyline. The idea was the South didn't want to end slavery, and the North didn't want the South to leave the Union. But as with the Dinner, there is some mystery as to the particulars which Ellis doesn't dispel.

The last two chapters of "Founding Brothers" give it life, memorableness, and probably that Pulitzer back in 2001. It focuses on two Founders, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams, in kind of a bookend way to Burr and Hamilton. Jefferson and Adams also had a bitter fallout, but patched things up and corresponded over their last 14 years. Adams is portrayed more positively, which seems to me fitting, but not without his peevish flaws. Jefferson was a hypocrite on slavery and a consummate fabulist about everything, but it was hard to hold that too much against him when one of those inventions was America.

Ellis presents the pair as the yin and yang of early America, Adams earthy and rooted to reality, Jefferson the dreamer. Jefferson had the ability to construct an edifice, Adams the cussedness to look for structural flaws with brilliant argumentation. In the end, you had a sturdy dwelling, but some hard feelings it took the two a while to resolve.

They did resolve it, though, holding out hope for Americans decades and centuries hence that what unites us can overcome what divides us. It's a nice lesson, presented subtly, but feels more tacked on than it should in this somewhat unfocused book.

It looked a lot prettier in those Gilbert Stuart and John Trumbull paintings than it did in reality. If there's an overall theme to Joseph Ellis's 2000 book "Founding Brothers", it's that the United States was tempered as much by internal conflict as by war with Great Britain.

Ellis's approach deals with the aftermath of the American Revolution, post-Constitution, in six drawn-out narratives exploring various facets of the internal conflicts the Founding Fathers had. He begins with the most famous and deadly of them, when Aaron Burr, then a sitting vice president, killed Alexander Hamilton for reportedly expressing his disapproval of Burr's character. It was a duel, agreed to by both men, but a strange way for Burr to uphold his honor.

Yet Ellis's treatment of the material feels weak. As a story-teller, he muddies the waters by flipping back and forth in time, losing what little suspense the "Interview at Weehawken" could generate. As a historian, he misses some vital, commonly-known points, like Burr's gloating right after the duel and the conjecture that Hamilton's pistol shot down a tree branch, which if true might confirm the theory he had no intention of shooting Burr that day.

Ellis's middle chapters take on the question of how Washington, D.C. became the nation's capital; why slavery was allowed to remain in effect for so long; and what Washington was thinking when he either penned, or merely signed, his famous Farewell Address.

All of these chapters are readable, and occasionally, poignant. You get a sense of Washington as the supreme stoic in his standing behind an unpopular treaty. "Clouds may and doubtless often will in the vicissitudes of events, hover over political concerns, but a steady adherence to these principles will not only dispel but render our prospects brighter by such temporary obscurities."

But there is a lot of nothing in them, too. The chapter about Washington, D.C., "The Dinner", for all its scene-setting, doesn't really establish any such dinner, to talk over locating the Capital and assuming state debts, really took place at all. Ellis presents the slavery question well enough, but struggles to create a coherent storyline. The idea was the South didn't want to end slavery, and the North didn't want the South to leave the Union. But as with the Dinner, there is some mystery as to how agreed-upon this situation was, which Ellis doesn't dispel.

The last two chapters of "Founding Brothers" are what give it life, memorableness, and probably that Pulitzer back in 2001. It focuses on two of the Founders, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams, and in kind of a bookend way to Burr and Hamilton. Jefferson and Adams also had a bitter fallout, but patched things up and corresponded over their last 14 years. Adams is portrayed more admiringly, which seems to me fitting, but not without his peevish flaws. Jefferson was a hypocrite on slavery and a consummate fabulist about everything, but it was hard to hold that too much against him when one of those inventions was America.

Ellis presents the pair as the yin and yang of early America, Adams earthy and rooted to reality, Jefferson the dreamer. Jefferson had the ability to construct an edifice, Adams the cussedness to look for structural flaws with brilliant argumentation. In the end, you had a sturdy dwelling, but some hard feelings it took the two a while to resolve.

They did resolve it, though, holding out hope for Americans decades and centuries hence that what unites us can overcome what divides us. It's a nice lesson, presented subtly, but feels more tacked on than it should in this somewhat unfocused book.

Joseph Ellis has written another book which is completely different than all his other historical efforts. He has taken a rather different look at America in its infancy.
In this effort, Ellis focus is on a half a dozen political personages. The six people in this study are John Adams, George Washington, James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, Alexander Hamilton and Aaron Burr.
This rather eclectic group helped to form the precedents and the very foundation of our government.
Ellis goes on to explain how each of these people contributed to the formation of our government. He explains the settlement of the issue of the placement of our capital of Washington. It was determined to be an area in Virginia to placate the Southern Republicans. The trade off was the Federal Government assuming all state debts thus strengthening Hamilton's Federalist position as Secretary of the Treasury.
Also noted was the beginnings of party politics which was not done as it is today in doing direct political attacks. In our Country's infancy it was done with pseudonyms in the newspapers to attack opposing ideas.
These attacks became so severe that in John Adams' administration the Alien and Sedition Acts were passed. In reality this was the suppression of the first amendment. One must remember this was before the strong Supreme Court of John Marshall! One must realize, everything was new and untested. The Country was young and was seeking its own direction.
As Ellis recounts all was not easy in the formation of our government. As Michiko Kakutuni explains in her New York Times Book Review Ellis' book is a "lively and illuminating epic, if somewhat arbitrary book that leaves the reader with a visceral sense of a formative era in American life."
I agree with her. This is an excellent read of which you will learn much.

I followed McCullough's 1776 and John Adams to Joseph Ellis' remarkable compilation of stories centered around the exploits of Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Burr, Hamilton and Madison. The political intrigue, posturing, and backstabbing that takes place in these stories is rendered more fascinating in that it takes place in the shadow of America's newly won independence. The traits displayed in these stories compliment the sheer genius of these men, and leave the reader with multidimensional founding fathers as opposed to the cardboard heroes we were taught to worship in elelmentary school. Washington the land speculator, Burr the murderer, Hamilton the monarch in the making, the two faced Jefferson, and the honorable Adams. This history is simply missing from our history books. These stories are incredibly worthwhile and they detail with which they are presented is remarkable. Forget the history buff, this is a must read for everyone. Founding Brothers: The Revolutionary Generation

There is a great tendency to deify the "founding fathers" these days. As if by invoking the phrase "founding fathers", you can gain their approval. Founding Brothers explains very well that the American Revolution didn't happen for us. It happened because the folks who carried it out did it for themselves. Their biggest motivation was the idea that they could get away with it. After that they had to make up the rest as they went along. It was ok: the rewards for succeeding would be the Northwest Territories. It is a good thing this happened before socialism, or it would have been described as socialism by the British and the French Monarchy.

The primary difference between Hamilton and Burr was that Hamilton could balance a check book.

There were also differences between Thomas Jefferson and John Adams. Thomas Jefferson was good at venerating freedom and Farmers, yet lived as a slave holder and a Planter. Some say he would have freed his slaves if the price of land ever appreciated enough. Land didn't appreciate much, because there was so much new land in the northwest territory and louisiana purchase. John Adams worked for a living and as a yeoman farmer. John Adams could also balance a checkbook.

I thoroughly enjoyed this collection of tales about a number of the founding fathers, and their relations with each other. The opening vignette has to do with the Burr- Hamilton duel and in the course of this Ellis tells the personal history of each of the protagonists. I learned more about Burr than I learned in grade school or for that matter graduate- school , and this grandson of Jonathan Edwards was revealed to be a far more competent and two- faced politician than even the traditional stereotype of him as traitor, suggests. Hamilton too is shown to be a bit different than I had imagined, and was in fact on a downhill course politically when the duel took place. Ellis does a wonderful job in filling in the historical background and significance.
I also greatly enjoyed the piece on Washington's farewell including the 'realistic' description of how Washington actually looked. Nonetheless Ellis affirms his greatness, and his clear role as natural leader and first great American hero.
The final vignette has to do with the twelve- year correspondance of Adams and Jefferson. What is wonderful here is the way Ellis traces the whole story of their long relationship, their working together in the most critical moments and on the most critical documents of the Revolution, their falling out over their struggle for the Presidency, their coming to 'make- up' through the services of Benjamin Rush and through a letter of condolence written by Abigail Adams to Jefferson at the loss of his young daughter. Ellis describes how each of the great men uses the Letters to justify his own view of the Revolution. No matter how times one reads about it one cannot help be moved by the story of their dying five hours from each other on July 4, 1826, at the fiftieth anniversary of the signing of the Declaration.
For any lover of American history this work is simply a very great pleasure to read.

Ellis brings to well-crafted life the fragile nature of the American experiment in the first years after the revolution and the Constitution. He uses six short stories or incidents to frame this so-fragile balance between war and peace, Federalist and Republican, the very success or ignominious death of the American experiment:

--The Burr/Hamilton duel (in which Burr, the sitting VP shot and killed Hamilton.

--The compromise dinner (one of many clandestine efforts at the time) between Jefferson, Hamilton, and Madison to log-roll a compromise to get federal debt assumption and the location of the future capital agreed to the satisfaction of all.

--One none-event as such, "The Silence" over slavery, which debate was postponed by the Constitutional Convention, but reopened by Quakers, and quickly silenced again by honest and moral men of both pro-slavery and anti-slavery dispositions as detrimental to the continuation of the American experiment.

--Washington's Farewell Address, which established the free and willing succession of power in a vast republic, a thing to be marveled at (see: Revolution, French).

--The collaboration between first Adams and Jefferson as Revolutionary partners, than John and Abigail versus Jefferson and Madison as enemies in the bitter partisan struggle of the two president's terms (1796-1808).

--And finally, the reconciliation between the last two standing of this greatest generation, this "band of brothers" (yes, the phrase used by Jefferson and Adams) in their 15-year correspondence concluding with death on July 4, 1826 within five hours on the 50th anniversary of the celebration of their rise to aristocracy!

Ellis is a good storyteller, and I wept silently reading the final events in realization of the 180 years since how much we how to these great men and their leadership and sacrifice for the greatest experiment in human government.

OK so I read this book for school and had to write about each chapter. After trying to get through the Preface, I discovered this:
-one, Ellis feels the need to blather on needlessly. This book could have been easily been half the length had the author known the value of good editing

-two, apparently he has never heard of organized writing. You do not talk about one thing, talk about another and then repeatedly go back and forth. It makes this even more confusing to follow along.

-three, hey random interesting facts are cool, but they belong somewhere else, not stuck in the middle of sentence that has a completely different topic.

- four, is this guy a mind reader with a time machine? How does he know what all these guys are thinking at random points in their life? Primary documents will only take you so far. Anything i saw with this kind of tone i did not write about considering it did not look very reliable

Don't get me wrong the book has it moments. The topics for each chapter are very interesting and under normal circumstances would have been enjoyable to learn about. Just tell me when they republish this thing, reworked and edited.

I am not a scholar in early American Republic, so there are simply aspects of this book I can not discuss. But I can say that for a reader who takes history seriously, and wants a quick introduction to some of the primary characters who populated the political history of that period, this is a fine book. Let me get my biggest complaint out of the way first. For the true novice in the history of the Republic, there is no attempt to create a narrative that introduces the central themes nor timeline. There is an assumption on the author's part that you know the differences between Republicans and Federalists; they you understand the temporal and historical difference between 1776 and the signing of the Declaration of Independence and the Continental Congress 10 years later. Without this introduction, I had trouble putting some one the book in proper context.

That said, the book focuses on people, and less on events. It paints serious portraits of Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, George Washington - just to name a few - and how the interaction between these people gave rise to the Republic. It's very well written, and in large, quite readable. I found that the chapter titled "The Farewell" was a bit less tight, or well constructed than others; on the opposite side, I found the final chapter, "The Friendship," to be compelling reading. I also found the bond between John and Abigail Adams quite fascinating; she was, while always in the background, his main advisor and certainly trusted confident. A fascinating relationship that deserves a book of its own (I suspect there are already hundreds). The book is really just a primer that sets up some of the basic dichotomies that characterized the early Republic, and rather than solve them or fully explain them, it really just sets you up for further study.

I certainly recommend it; I just might suggest you read a book like Gordon S. Wood "The American Revolution" before this one, so you have a context in which to place these chapters. If you already have that background, then jump in. Ellis says that the book is largely a compendium of a lifetime of study, and for many of us, it may be the beginning of our study of the period

I came to this book too after watching the suberb John Adams mini-series. I wanted to learn more about some of the other early leaders of our nation. The history I learned in grade school was fleshed out here and then some. All of the chapters dealing with different defining moments in the post-revolutionary period were interesting and entertaining. I appreciated the way the book was arranged in short chapters with the major players, Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Madison, Franklin, Burr, and Hamilton weaving in and out of the story. You gain an appreciation of how difficult it was to keep our new United States together among a host of complicated issues. I discovered several very interesting parallels to the politics of today. The more things change, the more they stay the same as far as human nature is concerned. I recommend this book to all interested in the story of our country. A must-read for all Americans.

Even though I'd seen and heard multiple items about the founding generation, I was pleasantly surprised that I learned something new from this work...namely that the discussion of the location of the new capital was seriously sidetracked by an abolitionist delegation's visit (which was even blessed by fellow abolitionist Ben Franklin shortly before his death). Highly Recommended, a great yarn.

NOTE: THIS REFER REFERS TO THE UNABRIBED AUDIO CD VERSION

First of all, I'm not going to get into the controversy over whether this book is totally accurate historically. If I knew that, I'd be writing a history book rather than reading one. The fact is, no one can be 100% sure of everything that happened or was thought 250 years ago.

That issue aside, it's an interesting book but it gets bogged down in far too much detail and analyses. It isn't scholarly enough for a truly academic treatise, but not "entertaining" enough for a popular history. It may therefore bore some readers who prefer a more humanized anecdotal telling and infuriate purists who want proven facts rather than occasional speculation.

The reader is good, but his voice tends to take on a droning quality if listened to for long periods. There is not enough differentiation for the quoted passages, so it's sometimes hard to tell what is a historical quote and what it the author's statements.

From reading other reviews, I think it's safe to say that this is book may be too lengthy and "boring" for young students (which may be a sad commentary on both our youth and our school system) yet not scholarly enough for serious American history fans. The problem is, who's left?

I'm giving this book 4 Stars. I was going to go with 3, but based on the works readability and style I believe that there is something to be taken away by everyone. The information presented by Ellis will interest the scholarly historian as well as the casually curious reader. The former of the two readers may busy themselves more with disputing some of the poorly cited, questionable material presented within the pages of this book.
If I have it right, Ellis was attempting to portray the founders as a group of thoroughly human participants that possessed the omniprescence to grasp the scope of what their actions meant to history. This fundamental paradox of presentation left me scratching my head in search of the authors true motives. Was Ellis attempting to unite us with the men and politics of the Founding generation or was he furthering the mystification of these men, by adding to the accumulated material that presents them as histoical deities.
Regardless of the overall impression the book leaves on you, I am sure, the reader will find themselves entertained from start to finish.

In the afterglow of the HBO series on John Adams, I grew interested in some of the founding fathers, many of whom had seemed boring to me ever since I read their bios in grade school. Ellis does a highly intelligent and readable job of laying out the personalities, conflicts and battles of the whole group during the first years of the nation. I particularly like the chapter on the duel between Aaron Burr and Alexander Hamilton. Also great is the chapter about George Washington, who had seemed a cardboard character to me until my interest was piqued by the TV series. Ellis is more than a little inclined to repeat himself in that particular way academics have, although his ruminations are likely to advance the story, although a bit wordily. That aside, this book is worth digging into by anyone who wants to know what those guys were really all about and who doesn't want to be told by some ideologue what to think about them.

If I had to recommend one book to read in a year, I would recommend The Founding Brothers.

Joseph Ellis recounts the early stages of American history with six historically-based tales about the Founding Fathers or, as he thinks of them, the Founding Brothers. The stories of Jefferson, John Adams, Madison, Washington, Hamilton, and Franklin (more of a Founding Grandfather, Ellis asserts) highlight how the period after the Revolutionary War was the most politically treacherous in our nation's history. It was the Founding Brother's talents and foresight that allowed them build a country out of a revolution which, in most cases, falls short of ideals because of personal ambitions.

The stories of the Founding Brothers is completely factual, however, the stories are written so that the reader can see the emotional and personal character aspects that the Brothers experienced during the early years of our nation. The stories are interconnected and woven so that even though each of the stories highlight different facets of the nation's early history (the ratification of the Constitution, the question of slavery, the infamous duel at Weehawken, the location of the new republic's capitol), the major players remain the same. Their personalities are built together to create interesting and insightful history.

This book won the Pulitzer Prize. After reading, I found that to be no surprise at all. It's an excellent read with a blend of wit, conviviality, learnedness, and intelligence.

Others have commented upon Ellis' problems with the truth in his personal life, and I will not revisit those issues here. However, while this book is a good read and tells interesting stories, there are factual problems here when you get down to the details. First, the book is poorly documented. Only direct quotes seem to be cited with footnotes. Thus, when the author makes questionable assertions, his sources are unidentified. For example, he claims that the idea of political parities was new in the 1790s. Anyone with a fundamental knowledge of colonial or British politics knows this claim to be false. Second, Ellis claims that Jefferson's affair with Sally Hemmings has been proven by DNA evidence beyond all reasonable doubt. Again, this claim is false. The DNA testing has only proved that a member of the Jefferson family fathered Hemmings' children. Personally, I believe it was Thomas Jefferson, but the DNA evidence has proven nothing beyond a reasonable doubt. Third, Ellis claims that Hamilton's pamphlet against John Adams had no major impact on the election of 1800, which is a fact others would certainly dispute. These are some examples of Ellis' weakness with details and facts. His interpretations are often made, it seems to me anyway, to fit his preconceived agenda. George Washington, for example, is portrayed as the father of big-government liberalism.

This book is very readable, but the stories seem disconnected to me and some statements of fact and assertions are highly questionable. I cannot even see very clearly what the overall argument is in the book. I almost wonder if these stories were bits and pieces left over from other works that Ellis threw into a book he thought would easily sell to the general public. If you read this book, read it critically and do not take it at face value. I'm really not sure why this book won a Pulitzer. It must have been for the writing itself. This book is a good read, but it is often very bad history.

Ellis presents this as if it were a light little book: a collection of vignettes about the Founders that will give us some random insights into the Revolution and the early Republic. It certainly reads like a light, little book. The pages turn easily, and it is a very entertaining read.

But, beneath the very decorative surface, this is a very serious book. It is nothing less than a prolonged series of explorations into the contradictions at the heart of the Revolution and of America. The fundamental contradiction which Ellis sees is between the spirit of the Revolution -- which opposed all authority of any kind -- and the needs of the new Republic to have effective leadership. This is why the unity of the Washington period gave way to the extraordinary bitterness of the partisan warfare during the Adams Administration. Washington, Hamilton and Adams focused on the need to build a nation with effective institutions of leadership. Jefferson and Madison saw any strong leadership -- until THEY won the White House -- as a betrayal of the Revolution.

It would be easy for Ellis to see Jefferson as essentially a hypocrite. The great exponent of freedom who kept slaves. The merciless attacker of the shoemaker's son (John Adams) as an aristocrat when he inherited his wealth. The leader of the slander and defamation against both Washington and Adams, who served as a high official in both of their Adminstrations.

All of this is true, and Ellis examines it, but there is more to Jefferson than just hypocrisy, and Ellis sees that as well. As he explains, Jefferson had a great talent for creating stories, which fit grand narrative lines. Unlike Adams, who insisted on seeing reality as a mass of messy contradictions, Jefferson also saw the world as playing out the simple and inspiring lines of the great Englishtenment melodrama in which reason and freedom marched to their inevitable victory over superstitution and feudalism.

This, of course, speaks to Jefferson's ability at self-delusion -- of which he was a master -- but there is more. The new Republic needed a founding story. People need a simple narration, to use to make sense of their world. Adams was quite unable to giving one to America; he insisted there there was no simple story line. Jefferson was so incredibly effective as a leader, precisely because he could create these story lines and make people believe them. More than all of the other Founders, Jefferson was able to create a new iconography for the new Republic. Ellis sees, and lucidly explains, all of these levels of Jefferson, the self-deluding hypocrite who flattened out the messy parts of reality to fit the story line in his head, but then made that story line THE story line which inspired the new nation. Very complex stuff, and Ellis does full credit to it.

The insights into the individual leaders are just extraordinary. Ellis simultaneously is deeply sympathetic to, yet harshly critical of, nearly all of the Founders. He understands them, and he sees into their souls. He loves and admires them, yet no one is more aware of their failings. This is not a book with easy answers. Instead, it is a book

This book contains chapters that describe slices of early American history, and the men involved, beginning with the Burr/Hamilton duel, and ending with the reconciliation of John Adams and Thomas Jefferson at the end of their lives.
It's an excellent book and I was sorry when I finished it. The only flaw is that in some cases, particularly the duel, the author seems to beat the subject to death. Despite this, I'd recommend it to anyone with an interest in the establishment of our nation.

"Founding Brothers, The Revolutionary Generation" by Joseph J. Ellis expertly navigates through the tangled web of contradictions, idealisms, accusations, and personal rivalries that ultimately shaped America's destiny. Ellis's depiction of documented eyewitness accounts, correspondences, and hearsay offers an enlightening journey into the intricate lives of America's Founding Brothers. George Washington, James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, Alexander Hamilton, Aaron Burr, and John Adams take center stage as the principal Founding Brothers whose extraordinary mix of personality and idealism set the nation's course.
Ellis refers to the 1790's as "the most decisive decade in our nation's history." The most gifted intellectuals of their generation gathered together and collectively laid the foundation for the delicate, fledgling nation, ultimately directing its growth and expansion for the forthcoming centuries. In a lively and engaging narrative, Ellis recounts the occasionally collaborative, sporadically egotistical, and incessantly patronizing relations among these extraordinary gentlemen, effectively portraying the private individuals behind the public personas.
Founding Brothers is divided into six chapters in which Ellis focuses on six discrete moments that exemplify the most crucial issues, policy decisions, and economic factors impacting the young nation's preliminary development. The issues range from Jefferson's "dinner party" negotiation to a dissection of the complex quarrel and camaraderie of John Adams and Thomas Jefferson. Each chapter is approximately forty pages in length, which allows its audience to appreciate the complexity of the story, as well as the intricate character of the founders themselves.
Following a brief glimpse at the events and mind-sets of the generation, Ellis reconstructs the fatal duel between Burr and Hamilton, the solitary instance in "the revolutionary generation when political difference ended in violence and death rather than in ongoing argument." Ellis' dramatic style seizes his audience's focus as he impartially investigates the evidence and permits the readers to draw our own conclusions as to what actually occurred on that bleak morning in July. Ellis does an eloquent job of illustrating that even with a wealth of documented evidence, contradictory testimony and documentation can leave historians perplexed as to what actually transpired. The reader comes away from the book with a better understanding that historical knowledge and perception are limited to narratives and documents bequeathed by previous generations.
This Pulitzer Prize-winning book emphasizes the mortal persona of the founders by replacing the legendary title "Fathers" with the more realistic and accessible term "Brothers." Ellis proficiently accentuates in "The Dinner" the significance that a handful of politicians engaged in a modest buffet could essentially establish a precedent for federal power in United States. Unfortunately, the capability of the few to set the standard for generations to come has created a modern day stereotypic perception of the Founding Brothers as one of flawless perfection. In "The Silence", Ellis exemplifies the lack of infallibility of the founders in the first congressional debate concerning petitions to eradicate slavery. Ellis efficiently dispels any false notions that the United States or its Founding Brothers were naturally ideal by illuminating the tribulations that arose from being forced to contend with an establishment so deeply rooted in the nation's social and economic existence.
Founding Brothers solidifies its readers' understanding of American politics and offers a new perspective on the unpredictable forces that shape history. Ellis contrasts Washington the realist, and Jefferson, "for whom ideals were the supreme reality and whose inspirational prowess derived from his confidence that the world would eventually come around to fit the picture he had in his head," to assert that although checks and balances permitted the infant American republic to endure, the motive for its creation was not constitutional or legalistic, but intensely personal, rooted in the dynamic interaction of politicians with a combination of strong opinions, distinctive values, and unique visions.
Ellis's style is crisp and overflowing with clever irony. He offers fresh insights to worn-out subject matter, such as the Hamilton-Burr duel. The fundamental premise running through Founding Brothers is that the founders constituted a unique faction of individuals who were capable of forging a new nation only through personal and professional divergence. Ellis fittingly refers to this era as "one long shouting match between those, like Hamilton, who championed the power of the central government and those, like Jefferson, who defended the rights of states and individuals."

As a teacher who taught American History to high school students (not AP kids, but still..) for 25 years, I thought I had a pretty good grasp of the events before, during and after the Revolutionary War. I am greatly humbled by this book, which brings new information and understandings to those critical decades. The book is a page-turner, even though the reader knows how it all turned out. I strongly recommend this book to everyone, history buff or not. Ellis is particularly skilled at giving both sides of each story. Heroes become goats and vice versa, and then they reverse positions before three pages have gone by. Terrific read.

Founding Brothers is an excellent history, presented in an interesting format. I gave it to our Grandson, HS freshman; he was quite pleased with how much he learned that reinforced his school lessons.

While this text was well-written, I struggled to get through it.

There's lots of useful, probably reasonably historically accurate information in the text, true. But, first, the worship of George Washington is so prevalent as to be offensive. We seem to be in a period in which we applaud those who ostensibly founded us...what I've called treating them like "Disney characters." I'm a little skeptical of G. Washington. First, Mason Weems created a fantasy of George that I think GW's allies rather liked. We must not forget, though, that Washington was a wealthy white guy who owned slaves. (At Mount Vernon, since they created an "education center" about a year ago, they've all but produced an apotheosis of him, just like the art work on the capital rotunda!)

Then there's the "facts" that were simply wrong. The ones I remember are that "Washington was a hair under 6'4"." No, he was 6'2". And "James Madison was 5'6"." No, he was somewhere between 4'11" and 5'2" (depending on how much the describer liked him). Trivia? Not really when you're suggesting facts; their erroneous nature challenges the credibility of the whole text!

What's more, he wasn't successful in, for example, the French and Indian War. In short, GW was a human being. So, in fact, were Tom Jefferson, John and Abigail Adams, and the others in the book. But the book reads like they were fairy tale characters.

Something in the book too that bordered on offensive was the use of the phrase "band of brothers" at least 6 times. All right, John, so you think you're coining some kind of logo for the boys. Don't overdo it!

Then I don't remember if it was in the text or in the interview with the author at the end (I listened to the recorded version of it) but the author included value judgements which I thought were inappropriate to a scholarly document. One I remember is his connecting capitalism with democracy, a connection of "our system" with a market economy as if they were as natural as breathing air. Allow the reader to make his or her own decision. I don't need that sort of editorializing.

Truth be told, I was a little skeptical of the text when I found that the author had taught at West Point for years. I guess my experience with big organizations has convinced me that people make it in such structures (e.g., the army, especially the academy realm) by either believing the "right" things and/or by saying the right things to the right people at the right times. That's why such value judgements and Disney characterization might be appropriate to a member of such a structure as the army/West Point.

But, the fact is, the book is well written. So, if you feel especially ignorant of the beginning of US history, this might be a volume to read...skeptically.

While this text was well-written, I struggled to get through it.

There's lots of useful, probably reasonably historically accurate information in the text, true. But, first, the worship of George Washington is so prevalent as to be offensive. We seem to be in a period in which we applaud those who ostensibly founded us...what I've called treating them like "Disney characters." I'm a little skeptical of G. Washington. First, Mason Weems created a fantasy of George that I think GW's allies rather liked. We must not forget, though, that Washington was a wealthy white guy who owned slaves. (At Mount Vernon, since they created an "education center" about a year ago, they've all but produced an apotheosis of him, just like the art work on the capital rotunda!)

What's more, he wasn't successful in, for example, the French and Indian War. In short, GW was a human being. So, in fact, were Tom Jefferson, John and Abigail Adams, and the others in the book. But the book reads like they were fairy tale characters.

Something in the book too that bordered on offensive was the use of the phrase "band of brothers" at least 6 times. All right, John, so you think you're coining some kind of logo for the boys. Don't overdo it!

Then I don't remember if it was in the text or in the interview with the author at the end (I listened to the recorded version of it) but the author included value judgements which I thought were inappropriate to a scholarly document. One I remember is his connecting capitalism with democracy, a connection of "our system" with a market economy as if they were as natural as breathing air. Allow the reader to make his or her own decision. I don't need that sort of editorializing.

Truth be told, I was a little skeptical of the text when I found that the author had taught at West Point for years. I guess my experience with big organizations has convinced me that people make it in such structures (e.g., the army, especially the academy realm) by either believing the "right" things and/or by saying the right things to the right people at the right times. That's why such value judgements and Disney characterization might be appropriate to a member of such a structure.
West Point.

But, the fact is, the book is well written. So, if you feel especially ignorant of the beginning of US history, this might be a volume to read...skeptically.

This splendid book takes us back to the fight for independence of our country, the early beginnings which led to the Declaration of Independence. We've grown up looking at their pictures hanging on the school room walls and at other places. The Great Hall of the Library of Congress beautifully displays this early history for all generations to visit and marvel at these couragous American leaders. The portrait of George Washington who could not tell a lie, has been used in many movies and was on the wall of the store clerk's apartment in "Bundle Of Joy," and many others. It is the best known. Ben Franklin represented America in other places as a statesman and was an inventor of the first class. He came up with rhymes and common sense for the early settlers of the Eastern states.

John Adams and Jefferson were prominent in the Declaration of Independence composing, and who could forget John Hancock. Joseph Ellis gives details of the bickering and in-fighting to finally complete this important document. Minerva, a marble mosaic, is located on the landing of the staircase leading to the Visitors' Gallery (the heart of the Library). The quotation in Latin beneath was from Horace's Ars Poetica: "Not unwilling. Minerva erects a monument more lasting than brass."

This is simply my favorite history book that I have ever read. Amazing. I could not put it down. Ellis took a series of important and interesting stories among the founding fathers and gave those great individuals life. The best three chapters were The Duel, The Dinner and The Friendship. There was never a dull moment in this book, which seamlessly incorporated all the key founders and showed what made them great. I would recommend this book to anyone.

Listening to this book, I was struck at how much alike the philosopher kings who started our nation were to us. The politics was bitter, and hatreds deep, and the society entertaining and lively. I got to know John Adams, Alexander Hamilton, George Washington, Aaron Burr, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and others in ways that made not only interesting listening, but established a kinship and feeling that our founding fathers were not demi-gods, but extraordinary human beings.

While we honorably revere the "Founding Fathers" of the American Revolution, they were not gods descended from Mount Olympus. This is not to say they weren't great men and didn't accomplish something truly remarkable and unprecedented in world history. But they were not perfect and infallible beings, and in fact, were as guilty of pettiness, jealousy, and vanity as anyone today. In this terrific book, Joseph Ellis brings to life these historical giants and examines not only their tremendous accomplishments but also the real men who accomplished them.

The book is a series of chapters each focusing on various events and personalities who played prominent parts in the American Revolution. Chapter 1 discusses the events that led up to the duel between Alexander Hamilton and Aaron Burr, the differences and history that ended in the physical death of Hamilton and the political death of Burr. Chapter 2 revolves around Hamilton's plans for the financial stability of the nation, why many opposed it, and how Jefferson and Madison brokered a deal (in spite of their opposition). Chapter 3 examines the farewell address of George Washington, how it not only answered his critics, but laid out his idea for the nation and set a precedent for time limits in office. Chapter 4 discusses the divisive issue of slavery, the attempts at emancipation, the resistance, and the eventual silence. Chapters 5 and 6 deal with the Adams/Jefferson friendship, their falling out, and eventual reconciliation.

And while I tend to favor the final chapter (the friendship renewal), I found all of it enjoyable. And I appreciate the approach Ellis takes to history, bringing these great men to life in believable proportions. He admits that Adams is his favorite, with his politically-agile wife and volatile temper and tendency to speak his mind even when it didn't benefit his political career. And he points out that nearly all of them were acutely aware that they were on the leading edge of something historically grand, and were careful to leave their legacies written down for us to learn from, or, as Ellis puts it: they were posing for posterity.

Writing Style: Some chapters have you turning the pages at break neck spead, while a couple are so dry as to almost make you want to ditch the whole book. He tends to overuse quotations and repeat the same point over and over in differnt ways. That said, as history writers go Ellis isn't so bad.

Depth/Context: You should have some basic understanding of the revolutionary era in order to make this a smooth read. He describes the book like this (not verbatim, but you will get the point)...history is like the ocean and i am on a boat sailing along and dunk buckets into the ocean. This book can be described as the contents of those buckets, rich and deep moments within the ocean, not an overview of the ocean itself.

This novel is undoubtedly historically accurate, but it is too boring to read. It delineates the major events that led to the founding of the United States providing detailed summaries of our founding fathers. Some of the stories are very interesting, such as the Hamilton Burr duel; however, others are easy to skip. This book provides an immense amount of history and information that any student in a US History course would want to know, but this book should not be read for pure simple entertainment because it has more analysis then plot.

Although this piece of work and Joseph Ellis in particular are very renown, I had a very difficult time reading this novel and wanted to skip a few pages every other page. Thirty pages discussing one duel is too much for me to handle and I eventually became lost and confused on what was happening. I did not pick up a lot from this novel because it is not written for amusement, but instead for research and for furthering knowledge on these historical figures.

I did not enjoy reading this, but it may just be my preference for a more suspenseful page turner. For any patient person interested in history, this is an excellent book because it provides more than enough information, but for all who are easily bored, beware.

Exceptionally well written and researched book about the first few decades of our country. Characters are brought to life showing the political and personal struggles they went thru. Similarities of the divisiveness of the two main political parties is strikingly similar to todays situation.

Ellis writes so, so very well. In fact, he writes in such a way as to make you glad you're reading his distillation of certain texts than the documents themselves. And that, readers, is a GIFT. His characerizations are bold, poetic, and remarkably insightful. I couldn't put it down!!

It seems that there are certain incidents in one's life that end up being defining moments that shape the future. In FOUNDING BROTHERS, Joseph Ellis points out six pivotal moments in the years following the American Revolution that shaped the United States. But just as importantly, they illustrate the character and motivations of the founding fathers.

Some of the scenes are better written than others. The chapter about the Hamilton/Burr duel is probably the best of the bunch, with the writing reflective of the emotion and chaos that surrounded that morning in New Jersey. Others, like the secret dinner that determined the location of the U.S. Capitol and the fate of Hamilton's financial dealings are have more murky prose, making the read more of a slog.

Ultimately, what is most interesting--and I think Ellis' point in writing the book--is how differently each of the founders interpreted the rationale for the Revolution and how those difference in rationale impacted how the new Country was shaped in the subsequent decades. While this is most explicit in the final chapter detailing the hot and cold friendship of Adams and Jefferson, each chapter seems to highlight that each of these leaders took away from the Revolution a different lesson for governance.

This is an important book and well worth reading if you have any interest at all in how the founders came to form the philosophy of government that is still the basis for our nation today. Just be forewarned that many parts of the book are not light reading and sometimes the prose is overly dense.

Founding Brothers fails to achieve its goal of describing six exploits that influenced American history in an interesting and captivating way. Joseph Ellis, in this book, utilizes an over extensive vocabulary that only blurs his major points. In Founding Brothers, Ellis becomes extremely repetitive with his major arguments, which are that the founding generation, and especially its most influential politicians, such as George Washington and Thomas Jefferson, the revolution survived because it was collectivistic and succeeded through the diversity of the people involved, all politicians knew each other, they avoided slavery to keep the fragile Union together, and that the politicians knew they were making history so they posed for the future. Founding Brothers features six events which came to shape American politics in the most important decade in American history, the 1790's. The first of these six events was the "Interview at Weehawken," which was a duel between Aaron Burr and Alexander Hamilton after which Hamilton died and Burr became a villain in the duel that ended all duels. Another event was the dinner party hosted by Thomas Jefferson in which Hamilton and James Madison decided to move the capital to Potomac in exchange for Madison gathering enough votes for the Assumption Bill to be passed through Congress. Joseph Ellis then describes the silence where two Quakers delegations decide to send a petition to end slavery to Congress with Benjamin Franklin signing it. However, Madison managed to convince Congress to enact a silence, meaning Congress would not interfere with the issue of slavery and when the Quakers sent another petition in 1792 it was ignored. The fourth event was the farewell when George Washington left politics after serving two terms as president and left his famous Farewell Address in which he left valuable advice for the coming presidents about foreign entanglements and soon after he left presidential office the greatest patriot in American history died. The fifth event was the collaborators in which Jefferson and Adams friendship became strained and they both turned toward different collaborators, Abigail Adams for Adams and Madison for Jefferson, and did not communicate with one another for eight years. The final event was the friendship in which the famous odd couple, Jefferson and Adams, renewed their friendship in the form of a 158 letter correspondence and both died on the fiftieth anniversary of the Declaration of Independence. Founding Brothers is a mediocre book at best which fails to maintain the readers interest in American politics in the 1790's, because of Ellis's confusing vocabulary, repetition that bores, overanalyzing style, inability to stay on topic, obvious bias, and lengthy sentence structure that leaves the reader wishing they hadn't wasted the twenty six dollars.

This book is a fine public service for those readers who do not have the time to read massive history texts.
The author does a great job of creating distinct (apparently realistic) impressions of what each Founder was like as a person and where he stood as an politician. You may not look at their likenesses in the same way again.

This was a very good read for me. I found it interesting and enlightening. What jumped out most to me were the differing personalities and philosophies of America's early leaders. It was intriguing to read about the Virginia Dynasty and connection between Madison and Jefferson. It was also interesting to read about the various rivalries.

However, there are three things that really made and impression on me from this book.

First, was the reality that the United States of America as a unified, sovereign nation barely happened. Sometimes there is this illusion that America's emergence was divine and undeniable. This book really shoots that illusion down. There were so many differing positions and rival parties. Many were still loyal to the British crown. And even after independence was won the states themselves could barely find consensus. There were so many points of contention. There were so much division among the newly independent American statesmen. The fact there was enough consensus to forge a republic is nothihg short of amazing.

Second, was Washington's decision not to be president for life. His stepping down and allowing someone else to run and take office while he was still alive was very significant. It provided a great degree of credibility to a tenuous political framework that very well could have collapsed once he died. Many leaders, only thinking of themselves, want to remain in position for the rest of their lives at the expense of the organization. Leaders with vision understand the organization has to last long after they are gone. Washington showed great vision with this move.

Lastly, of all of the historical figures that make an impact in this read none do so quite like Alexander Hamilton. After reading this work I feel Hamilton may be the most overlooked founding American of them all. His push for a strong central government made him a mortal political enemy of Jefferson and Madison. As I read the book Hamilton's position for a strong central government and his persona really struck a cord. While Jefferson's dreams of pure libertarianism made for good theory, Hamilton's insistence on a strong central government to regulate commerce made good sense. This book gave me a new interest in Hamilton. I plan to read one of his biographies.

In all, it is a great account of a collection of extraordinary events and people. If you like history and politics (as I do) check this one out.

Pretty much the most boring book I have ever read. (I had to for school)

...of the founding of our country. The founders were NOT a homogenous "band of brothers"; there were profound personal, political, philosophical and sectional differences, which somehow got worked out. This superb book looks at incidents and relationships, and how they affected the final product.

[1] The Duel...Aaron Burr killed Alexander Hamilton in a duel in 1804. This was an anti-climax for Hamilton; his useful life was already over...he had betrayed George Washington politically, and had experienced too many scandals in his personal life. The apostle of centralized government had become irrelevent, and, as for Aaron Burr, he had way too many enemies. In fact, Jefferson and Adams, who were then estranged, both hated both Burr and Hamilton. Anyway, Hamilton died, and Burr might as well have....he went on to try to become Emperor Aaron I, ran afoul of Mr. Jefferson....but that's another story. Dueling was already illegal, and this about finished it, though isolated incidents would occur until the Civil War.

[2] The Dinner Table Bargain. How did Washington, DC, get to be our capital? Here's how....Southerners wanted the new capital in the South...Alexander Hamilton wanted the new Federal Government to assume state debts. Assumption and Location. Enter Thomas Jefferson...he invited Madison and Hamilton to dinner at his rented house in New York. Hamilton, who could have cared less where the capital got located, agreed to back Madison's choice of the malarial swamp where our capital is today. Madison agreed not to fight assumption, though he still wouldn't vote for it. Compromise....

[3] The Silence....over slavery. Many, especially Benjamin Franklin, wanted to end slvery with the ratification of The Constitution...the Southerners wouldn't go along, and the resultant compromise put the problem off for another 20 years, by which time the cotton gin had been invented...Shiloh...Sharpsburg...Chickamauga... I know, there was a LOT more that went into causing the Civil War, but....

[4] The Farewell....to George Washington. Washington retired at the end of his second term. He had profound problems [mainly with Congress] in the second term, and God knows that he had done his share, and more. Maybe he knew that he wouldn't survive a third term. The Farewell Address is one of the masterpieces of the English language; how much of it was Washington's work, and how much Alexander Hamilton's, remains a matter of conjecture....

[5] and [6]...Thomas Jefferson and John Adams. Friends, collaborators in the invention of a nation...estranged over differences in politics...then, a final decision "not to die till we have explained ourselves to each other", which resulted in a wealth of letters that will be studied forever. Only God would have dared write the end...both died July 4, 1826, the 50th. anniversary of The Declaration of Independence. A writer of fiction would be dismissed as insane for such a thing...

Joseph Ellis is a treasure...biographies of Washington, Adams, and Jefferson [not written in that order] that are substantive enough for a historian, and short enough that any intelligent person can read them easily. Yes, others have gone deeper...but Douglas Southall Freeman needed seven long volumes for Washington, and Dumas Malone six for Jefferson. Ellis writes history that is "available"....and this MAY be his best work. I can't recommend it strongly enough....

I have developed a fascination with some of the nations great men, and been reading books on them, curious to what makes them 'tick'. This book is really unique in that it gives a really interesting perspective not only on the men, but the dynamic between them. It has been some of my favorite reading. This book is very well written, and thoughts flow logically and cohesively. I think the author has done a splendid job.

Bottom Line: A very enjoyable and easy read. Before taking on the huge biographies on Adams, Hamilton, Washington, and Jefferson read this book.

What You Will Learn: This book is sort of a greatest hits of revolutionary history. My favorite section is on the run-up to the duel between Hamilton and Burr - something I had read about in High School, but never with so much detail and drama. The description of the complicated relationship between John Adams and Thomas Jefferson is also very interesting and well written.

Parting Shot: Joseph Ellis does a great job in making history exciting - this book would serve as a great gift for a young person without much previous reading in American History.

This book presents a series of short biographical chapters dealing with the founding generation and in particular their relationships. Ellis' treatment of how the founding generation related to one another is I think a major contribution. For this reason I think "Founding Brothers" would be a great book for a high school or entry-level college history class. It is a quick read that really illuminates the relationships of the founding brothers.

There are a number of interesting dynamics explored by Ellis in this book. Of course, the duel between Burr and Hamilton is always a crowd pleaser. I also found the discussion of the Adams-Jefferson relationship very good, and also that of John Adams and his wife. In any case, the concise biographical nature of this book makes it very appropriate for those only moderately savvy to the characters of the time. This book is certainly worth of the Pulitzer.

As I read this book, the image of paint brushed faces of the Founding Fathers of the United States slowly scanned across to be replaced by real faces, warts and all, of real human beings that teamed up together to create the greatest Republic this world has ever seen.

This is how I felt when I read this book, "Founding Brothers" by Joseph J. Ellis.

Founding Brothers answered a question I asked myself for a long time: What were these great people thinking when they let slavery continue on for another century? The answer is they did not want to, and they were greatly pained by the conspicuous hypocrisy. The goal was to keep the Union at all expense. Even at the painful cost of hypocrisy. It took over two centuries to seriously consider an African-American to become President. I can see the Founders smiling down at the prospect.

The words and sentences in this work flow in a frictionless way, and together they have the quality without a name, to quote the great architect Christopher Alexander. Clearly the Pulitzer is not given to anyone, but to an author of the highest standard in expressing human thought.

"Founding Brothers" is definitely informative, and arguably contains some real insight into the character of America's founders. It baffles me, however, that people have described the book as "readable," "lucid," and (worst of all) "succinct." I read a lot of books, good and bad, and I can safely say that this one, historical though it may be, contains some of the least compelling writing I have ever waded through. I wish Ellis would have narrated a PBS special or something instead of writing this book: his prose style is pedantic, rambling and avuncular to the point of silliness, and his observations have a reverent, four-score-and-seven-years-ago quality that I find insufferable, especially in a book claiming to portray the Founding Fathers as real people. In addition, he has a penchant for throwing around ridiculous expressions (e.g. "in the crucible of the moment"), and will sometimes stop in the middle of a story to explain his own writerly thought-processes.

Ellis may be a great historian, but he's an absolutely terrible writer, and his knowledge of the facts is not enough to make me forgive him. Some of you may accuse me of being more interested in style than substance, but my argument is really that Ellis's style gets in the way of his substance. If the book were written in plain, choppy sentences, I would have less of a problem with it. Simple writing is okay if it makes things clear. But a plainly written book wouldn't have satisfied Ellis's scholarly pretensions, so he decided to inconvenience his readers with a lot of bloated prose. If you're interested in the origins of our nation, I think there is much better reading material out there.

I always wished to learn more about the history of America but did't have time to read the thick biographies. Thi