Alan Gibson's new book is incredibly useful for anyone who reads a lot about the founding of the American republic. What Gibson wants to do and succeeds in doing is to provide an overview of the different post-WWII schools of interpretation about the founding that is both nuanced and balance. It is by any standard a remarkable work of synthetic scholarship. It should be read by all majors in American history- not necessarily to agree with but as an exemplar of how to organize an overview of a field.
Gibson examines in 101 very tightly written pages (plus fourty pages of meaty footnotes) the "fundamental assumptions" and the "deeper ideological and methodological differences between schools...of interpretation that on the surface differ only about the interpretation of the facts" (p.xi). I have read deeply in this area continuously for the last fourteen or so years and I am in awe of Gibson's achievement.
Any story of the post WWII historigraphy about the founding has to really start with what that historigraphy is reacting against- the work of Charles Beard and the Progressive school. Gibson sees their work as based on two basic precepts: 1. the motives of the Founders cannot be ascertained by their writings and 2. that economic determinism was the key to understanding American history (p.7). Basing his empirical research on these precepts, Beard argued that the Constitution was an anti-democratic document that was motivated by the property interests of incipient capitalists. Beard supported his arguments with empirical research about the property holdings of those people who wrote and ratified the Constitution.
The post war period saw the reemergence of a consensus history that can be broadly categorized as liberal. Instead of emphasizing the class structure of the Founding period, this schools emphasizes "the continuity throughout American history of the middle-class structure of American society and the hegemony of liberal values such as the sanctity of property, economic individualism and democracy" (p.15). The methodology of this school of thought understands the motives of historical actors based on their own self-understanding. Gibson sees three major variants of the contemporary liberal school- 1. a triumverate of "Neo-Lockeans" (Joyce Appleby, Isaac Kramnick and John Patrick Diggins), 2. students of Leo Strauss (such as Paul Rahe) and 3. those who see liberalism as the core of a multi-tradition approach (p. 16). Gibson goes on to explore the work of each variant in a series of perfect short book reviews of the major works of these schools. Really many of us who review books on Amazon would do well to read Gibson's book as an object lesson in writing book reviews. His review of Rahe's Republics: Ancient and Modern on pp.18-21 almost makes me want to disown the one I wrote on Amazon.
Gibson next delineates the basic precepts of the republican synthesis. This group of scholars draws heavily on the work of Clifford Geertz and rely on a theory of ideology in their understanding of the founders. This theory allow them to mediate critically against both the idealist of the Liberal school and the Progressives. Ideologies are socially conditioned means of organizing the otherwise buzzing confusion of experience. They place a structure on our thought that is both confining and conditioning(p.23). Gibson nicely quotes Lance Banning on this: "...Sometimes this intellectual universe is so well structured and has so strong a hold that it can virtually determine not only the ways in which a society will express its hopes and discontents but also the central problems with which it will be concerned." (p. 23 of Gibson quoting Banning)
As such, ideologies make possible the self-understanding of historical actors. So what the writings of the Founders may reveal is not their musings on transhistorical truths or their rationalizations of their economic interests but the structure of the ideologies that were available to the actors. This school has focused on the civic humanist tradition as being the dominant language of discourse for the Founders. This chapter includes superb readings of Pocock, Wood, Banning and Bailyn all within 14 pages. Do you begin to see why I am so impressed?
Next, Gibson tackles a group of writers (Wills, Adair, McDonald, Yarbrough) who want to emphasize the influence of the Scottish Enlightenment (SE)on the Founding. Gibson notes that the SE provided the Founders with many of the preachers and educators who formed their thought. Madison, Monroe, Jefferson, Hamilton, Wilson, Rush all studied with Scots either here or in Scotland (p.38) The SE provided the founders with the idea of the 'invisible hand', the 'division of labor', the stadial theory of social and economic development along with moral-sense and common-sense philosophy.
Gibson goes on to examine those who try to combine some or all of the above schools in a multiple-traditions approach. Again, there are some here who do so with liberalism as the core approach to which the others are seen as supports. Gibson sees Michael Zuckert as the most sophisticated of these scholars. Gibson's review of the work of Rogers Smith and his book Civic Ideals was the part of this chapter that I found the most provocative. Smith is willing to posit that there are parts of our intellectual traditions that are inherently irrational and based on ascription. I have to wait until I read Smith's book for myself but I think his approach could be usefully applied to the states rights tradition of constitutional interpretation.
Finally, Gibson examines recent works of social history especially those that focus on feminist contributions to our understanding of the Founding, on the contribution of native americans and on how recent understanding of the issues surrounding slavery have transformed our understanding of the Founders. The last section is particularly strong.
In his final chapter, Gibson tries to examine what he feels each approach has to offer a synthetic historigraphy. In general, I find his arguments convincing. He, of course, is for a hybrid approach that would allow individual historians to mix and match these different approaches to the body of historical facts. He definitely feels there needs to be a further mixing of the social historical approach with the others. I would offer Sean Wilentz' recent The Rise of American Democracy as an exemplar.
I would also comment that I think a lot of the controversy that Gibson so brilliantly delineates was caused by the fact that none of the historians took seriously enough the basic datum that the actors in this period were working politicians, lawyers, merchants, farmers, etc. Yes, people like Madison, Jefferson, and Wilson read a lot. Really a lot. But I doubt if more then a couple of them were systematic philosophers who took the time to study (say) Locke, Hume and Harrington enough to note all the incompatibilities and to decide which one they agreed with. They were absorbed by the everyday details of governance more than by philosophical distinctions. I may be wrong. In his final chapter, Gibson mentions a few historians, like Peter Onuf, who have made this point. I would also like to mention the fine recent book by Max Edling on The Federalist that drives home this point.
I hope I have given an impression of the scope and compression of this book. I have read about 90% of the works that Gibson refers to but I learned something about all of them that I missed. I have mentioned in my music reviews my respect for those artists who devote themselves to the music of another. This fine historical work is impressive in that same way. It has taken Alan Gibson years to understand the work of scores of other historians so well that he can explicate their achievements with such concision. I found myself frequently marveling at what I was reading as I was reading this book. Isn't that why we read history?
I cannot recommend this book highly enough.

Alan Gibson's new book is incredibly useful for anyone who reads a lot about the founding of the American republic. What Gibson wants to do and succeeds in doing is to provide an overview of the different post-WWII schools of interpretation about the founding that is both nuanced and balance. It is by any standard a remarkable work of synthetic scholarship. It should be read by all majors in American history- not necessarily to agree with but as an exemplar of how to organize an overview of a field.
Gibson examines in 101 very tightly written pages (plus fourty pages of meaty footnotes) the "fundamental assumptions" and the "deeper ideological and methodological differences between schools...of interpretation that on the surface differ only about the interpretation of the facts" (p.xi). I have read deeply in this area continuously for the last fourteen or so years and I am in awe of Gibson's achievement.
Any story of the post WWII historigraphy about the founding has to really start with what that historigraphy is reacting against- the work of Charles Beard and the Progressive school. Gibson sees their work as based on two basic precepts: 1. the motives of the Founders cannot be ascertained by their writings and 2. that economic determinism was the key to understanding American history (p.7). Basing his empirical research on these precepts, Beard argued that the Constitution was an anti-democratic document that was motivated by the property interests of incipient capitalists. Beard supported his arguments with empirical research about the property holdings of those people who wrote and ratified the Constitution.
The post war period saw the reemergence of a consensus history that can be broadly categorized as liberal. Instead of emphasizing the class structure of the Founding period, this schools emphasizes "the continuity throughout American history of the middle-class structure of American society and the hegemony of liberal values such as the sanctity of property, economic individualism and democracy" (p.15). The methodology of this school of thought understands the motives of historical actors based on their own self-understanding. Gibson sees three major variants of the contemporary liberal school- 1. a triumverate of "Neo-Lockeans" (Joyce Appleby, Isaac Kramnick and John Patrick Diggins), 2. students of Leo Strauss (such as Paul Rahe) and 3. those who see liberalism as the core of a multi-tradition approach (p. 16). Gibson goes on to explore the work of each variant in a series of perfect short book reviews of the major works of these schools. Really many of us who review books on Amazon would do well to read Gibson's book as an object lesson in writing book reviews. His review of Rahe's Republics: Ancient and Modern on pp.18-21 almost makes me want to disown the one I wrote on Amazon.
Gibson next delineates the basic precepts of the republican synthesis. This group of scholars draws heavily on the work of Clifford Geertz and rely on a theory of ideology in their understanding of the founders. This theory allow them to mediate critically against both the idealist of the Liberal school and the Progressives. Ideologies are socially conditioned means of organizing the otherwise buzzing confusion of experience. They place a structure on our thought that is both confining and conditioning(p.23). Gibson nicely quotes Lance Banning on this: "...Sometimes this intellectual universe is so well structured and has so strong a hold that it can virtually determine not only the ways in which a society will express its hopes and discontents but also the central problems with which it will be concerned." (p. 23 of Gibson quoting Banning)
As such, ideologies make possible the self-understanding of historical actors. So what the writings of the Founders may reveal is not their musings on transhistorical truths or their rationalizations of their economic interests but the structure of the ideologies that were available to the actors. This school has focused on the civic humanist tradition as being the dominant language of discourse for the Founders. This chapter includes superb readings of Pocock, Wood, Banning and Bailyn all within 14 pages. Do you begin to see why I am so impressed?
Next, Gibson tackles a group of writers (Wills, Adair, McDonald, Yarbrough) who want to emphasize the influence of the Scottish Enlightenment (SE)on the Founding. Gibson notes that the SE provided the Founders with many of the preachers and educators who formed their thought. Madison, Monroe, Jefferson, Hamilton, Wilson, Rush all studied with Scots either here or in Scotland (p.38) The SE provided the founders with the idea of the 'invisible hand', the 'division of labor', the stadial theory of social and economic development along with moral-sense and common-sense philosophy.
Gibson goes on to examine those who try to combine some or all of the above schools in a multiple-traditions approach. Again, there are some here who do so with liberalism as the core approach to which the others are seen as supports. Gibson sees Michael Zuckert as the most sophisticated of these scholars. Gibson's review of the work of Rogers Smith and his book Civic Ideals was the part of this chapter that I found the most provocative. Smith is willing to posit that there are parts of our intellectual traditions that are inherently irrational and based on ascription. I have to wait until I read Smith's book for myself but I think his approach could be usefully applied to the states rights tradition of constitutional interpretation.
Finally, Gibson examines recent works of social history especially those that focus on feminist contributions to our understanding of the Founding, on the contribution of native americans and on how recent understanding of the issues surrounding slavery have transformed our understanding of the Founders. The last section is particularly strong.
In his final chapter, Gibson tries to examine what he feels each approach has to offer a synthetic historigraphy. In general, I find his arguments convincing. He, of course, is for a hybrid approach that would allow individual historians to mix and match these different approaches to the body of historical facts. He definitely feels there needs to be a further mixing of the social historical approach with the others. I would offer Sean Wilentz' recent The Rise of American Democracy as an exemplar.
I would also comment that I think a lot of the controversy that Gibson so brilliantly delineates was caused by the fact that none of the historians took seriously enough the basic datum that the actors in this period were working politicians, lawyers, merchants, farmers, etc. Yes, people like Madison, Jefferson, and Wilson read a lot. Really a lot. But I doubt if more then a couple of them were systematic philosophers who took the time to study (say) Locke, Hume and Harrington enough to note all the incompatibilities and to decide which one they agreed with. They were absorbed by the everyday details of governance more than by philosophical distinctions. I may be wrong. In his final chapter, Gibson mentions a few historians, like Peter Onuf, who have made this point. I would also like to mention the fine recent book by Max Edling on The Federalist that drives home this point.
I hope I have given an impression of the scope and compression of this book. I have read about 90% of the works that Gibson refers to but I learned something about all of them that I missed. I have mentioned in my music reviews my respect for those artists who devote themselves to the music of another. This fine historical work is impressive in that same way. It has taken Alan Gibson years to understand the work of scores of other historians so well that he can explicate their achievements with such concision. I found myself frequently marveling at what I was reading as I was reading this book. Isn't that why we read history?
I cannot recommend this book highly enough.

Alan Gibson's new book is incredibly useful for anyone who reads a lot about the founding of the American republic. What Gibson wants to do and succeeds in doing is to provide an overview of the different post-WWII schools of interpretation about the founding that is both nuanced and balance. It is by any standard a remarkable work of synthetic scholarship. It should be read by all majors in American history- not necessarily to agreee with but as an exemplar of how to organize an overview of a field.
Gibson examines in 101 very tightly written pages (plus fourty pages of meaty footnotes) the "fundamental assumptions" and the "deeper ideological and methodological differences between schools...of interpretation that on the surface differ only about the interpretation of the facts" (p.xi). I have read deeply in this area continuously for the last fourteen or so years and I am in awe of Gibson's achievement.
Any story of the post WWII historigraphy about the founding has to really start with what that historigraphy is reacting against- the work of Charles Beard and the Progressive school. Gibson sees their work as based on two basic precepts: 1. the motives of the Founders cannot be ascertained by their writings and 2. that economic determinism was the key to understanding American history (p.7). Basing his empirical research on these precepts, Beard argued that the Constitution was an anti-democratic document that was motivated by the property interests of incipient capitalists. Beard supported his arguments with empirical research about the property holdings of those people who wrote and ratified the Constitution.
The post war period saw the reemergence of a consensus history that can be broadly categorized as liberal. Instead of emphasizing the class structure of the Founding period, this schools emphasizes "the continuity throughout American history of the middle-class structure of American society and the hegemony of liberal values such as the sanctity of property, economic individualism and democracy" (p.15). The methodology of this school of thought understands the motives of historical actors based on their own self-understanding. Gibson sees three major variants of the contemporary liberal school- 1. a triumverate of "Neo-Lockeans" (Joyce Appleby, Isaac Kramnick and John Patrick Diggins), 2. students of Leo Strauss (such as Paul Rahe) and 3. those who see liberalism as the core of a multi-tradition approach (p. 16). Gibson goes on to explore the work of each variant in a series of perfect short book reviews of the major works of these schools. Really many of us who review books on Amazon would do well to read Gibson's book as an object lesson in writing book reviews. His review of Rahe's Republics: Ancient and Modern on pp.18-21 almost makes me want to disown the one I wrote on Amazon.
Gibson next delineates the basic precepts of the republican synthesis. This group of scholars draws heavily on the work of Clifford Geertz and rely on a theory of ideology in their understanding of the founders. This theory allow them to mediate critically against both the idealist of the Liberal school and the Progressives. Ideologies are socially conditioned means of organizing the otherwise buzzing confusion of experience. They place a structure on our thought that is both confining and conditioning(p.23). Gibson nicely quotes Lance Banning on this: "...Sometimes this intellectual universe is so well structured and has so strong a hold that it can virtually determine not only the ways in which a society will express its hopes and discontents but also the central problems with which it will be concerned." (p. 23 of Gibson quoting Banning)
As such, ideologies make possible the self-understanding of historical actors. So what the writings of the Founders may reveal is not their musings on transhistorical truths or their rationalizations of their economic interests but the structure of the ideologies that were available to the actors. This school has focused on the civic humanist tradition as being the dominant language of discourse for the Founders. This chapter includes superb readings of Pocock, Wood, Banning and Bailyn all within 14 pages. Do you begin to see why I am so impressed?
Next, Gibson tackles a group of writers (Wills, Adair, McDonald, Yarbrough) who want to emphasize the influence of the Scottish Enlightenment (SE)on the Founding. Gibson notes that the SE provided the Founders with many of the preachers and educators who formed their thought. Madison, Monroe, Jefferson, Hamilton, Wilson, Rush all studied with Scots either here or in Scotland (p.38) The SE provided the founders with the idea of the 'invisible hand', the 'division of labor', the stadial theory of social and economic development along with moral-sense and common-sense philosophy philosophy.
Gibson goes on to examine those who try to combine some or all of the above schools in a multiple-traditions approach. Again, there are some here who do so with liberalism as the core approach to which the others are seen as supports. Gibson sees Michael Zuckert as the most sophisticated of these scholars. Gibson's review of the work of Rogers Smith and his book Civic Ideals was the part of this chapter that I found the most provocative. Smith is willing to posit that there are parts of our intellectual traditions that are inherently irrational and based on ascription. I have to wait until I read Smith's book for myself but I think his approach could be usefully applied to the states rights tradition of constitutional interpretation.
Finally, Gibson examines recent works of social history especially those that focus on feminist contributions to our understanding of the Founding, on the contribution of native americans and on how recent understanding of the issues surrounding slavery have transformed our understanding of the Founders. The last section is particularly strong.
In his final chapter, Gibson tries to examine what he feels each approach has to offer a synthetic historigraphy. In general, I find his arguments convincing. He, of course, is for a hybrid approach that would allow individual historians to mix and match these different approaches to the body of historical facts. He definitely feels there needs to be a further mixing of the social historical approach with the others. I would offer Sean Wilentz' recent The Rise of American Democracy as an exemplar.
I would also comment that I think a lot of the controversy that Gibson so brilliantly delineates was caused by the fact that none of the historians took seriously enough the basic datum that the actors in this period were working politicians, lawyers, merchants, farmers, etc. Yes, people like Madison, Jefferson, and Wilson read a lot. Really a lot. But I doubt if more then a couple of them were systematic philosophers who took the time to study (say) Locke, Hume and Harrington enough to note all the incompatibilities and to decide which one they agreed with. They were absorbed by the everyday details of governance more than by philosophical distinctions. I may be wrong. In his final chapter, Gibson mentions a few historians, like Peter Onuf, who have made this point. I would also like to mention the fine recent book by Max Edling on The Federalist that drives home this point.
I hope I have given an impression of the scope and compression of this book. I have read about 90% of the works that Gibson refers to but I learned something about all of them that I missed. I have mentioned in my music reviews my respect for those artists who devote themselves to the music of another. This fine historical work is impressive in that same way. It has taken Alan Gibson years to understand the work of scores of other historians so well that he can explicate their achievements with such concision. I found myself frequently marveling at what I was reading as I was reading this book. Isn't that why we read history?
I cannot recommend this book highly enough.

Alan Gibson's new book is incredibly useful for anyone who reads a lot about the founding of the American republic. What Gibson wants to do and succeeds in doing is to provide an overview of the different post-WWII schools of interpretation about the founding that is both nuanced and balance. It is by any standard a remarkable work of synthetic scholarship. It should be read by all majors in American history- not necessarily to agree with but as an exemplar of how to organize an overview of a field.
Gibson examines in 101 very tightly written pages (plus fourty pages of meaty footnotes) the "fundamental assumptions" and the "deeper ideological and methodological differences between schools...of interpretation that on the surface differ only about the interpretation of the facts" (p.xi). I have read deeply in this area continuously for the last fourteen or so years and I am in awe of Gibson's achievement.
Any story of the post WWII historigraphy about the founding has to really start with what that historigraphy is reacting against- the work of Charles Beard and the Progressive school. Gibson sees their work as based on two basic precepts: 1. the motives of the Founders cannot be ascertained by their writings and 2. that economic determinism was the key to understanding American history (p.7). Basing his empirical research on these precepts, Beard argued that the Constitution was an anti-democratic document that was motivated by the property interests of incipient capitalists. Beard supported his arguments with empirical research about the property holdings of those people who wrote and ratified the Constitution.
The post war period saw the reemergence of a consensus history that can be broadly categorized as liberal. Instead of emphasizing the class structure of the Founding period, this schools emphasizes "the continuity throughout American history of the middle-class structure of American society and the hegemony of liberal values such as the sanctity of property, economic individualism and democracy" (p.15). The methodology of this school of thought understands the motives of historical actors based on their own self-understanding. Gibson sees three major variants of the contemporary liberal school- 1. a triumverate of "Neo-Lockeans" (Joyce Appleby, Isaac Kramnick and John Patrick Diggins), 2. students of Leo Strauss (such as Paul Rahe) and 3. those who see liberalism as the core of a multi-tradition approach (p. 16). Gibson goes on to explore the work of each variant in a series of perfect short book reviews of the major works of these schools. Really many of us who review books on Amazon would do well to read Gibson's book as an object lesson in writing book reviews. His review of Rahe's Republics: Ancient and Modern on pp.18-21 almost makes me want to disown the one I wrote on Amazon.
Gibson next delineates the basic precepts of the republican synthesis. This group of scholars draws heavily on the work of Clifford Geertz and rely on a theory of ideology in their understanding of the founders. This theory allow them to mediate critically against both the idealist of the Liberal school and the Progressives. Ideologies are socially conditioned means of organizing the otherwise buzzing confusion of experience. They place a structure on our thought that is both confining and conditioning(p.23). Gibson nicely quotes Lance Banning on this: "...Sometimes this intellectual universe is so well structured and has so strong a hold that it can virtually determine not only the ways in which a society will express its hopes and discontents but also the central problems with which it will be concerned." (p. 23 of Gibson quoting Banning)
As such, ideologies make possible the self-understanding of historical actors. So what the writings of the Founders may reveal is not their musings on transhistorical truths or their rationalizations of their economic interests but the structure of the ideologies that were available to the actors. This school has focused on the civic humanist tradition as being the dominant language of discourse for the Founders. This chapter includes superb readings of Pocock, Wood, Banning and Bailyn all within 14 pages. Do you begin to see why I am so impressed?
Next, Gibson tackles a group of writers (Wills, Adair, McDonald, Yarbrough) who want to emphasize the influence of the Scottish Enlightenment (SE)on the Founding. Gibson notes that the SE provided the Founders with many of the preachers and educators who formed their thought. Madison, Monroe, Jefferson, Hamilton, Wilson, Rush all studied with Scots either here or in Scotland (p.38) The SE provided the founders with the idea of the 'invisible hand', the 'division of labor', the stadial theory of social and economic development along with moral-sense and common-sense philosophy.
Gibson goes on to examine those who try to combine some or all of the above schools in a multiple-traditions approach. Again, there are some here who do so with liberalism as the core approach to which the others are seen as supports. Gibson sees Michael Zuckert as the most sophisticated of these scholars. Gibson's review of the work of Rogers Smith and his book Civic Ideals was the part of this chapter that I found the most provocative. Smith is willing to posit that there are parts of our intellectual traditions that are inherently irrational and based on ascription. I have to wait until I read Smith's book for myself but I think his approach could be usefully applied to the states rights tradition of constitutional interpretation.
Finally, Gibson examines recent works of social history especially those that focus on feminist contributions to our understanding of the Founding, on the contribution of native americans and on how recent understanding of the issues surrounding slavery have transformed our understanding of the Founders. The last section is particularly strong.
In his final chapter, Gibson tries to examine what he feels each approach has to offer a synthetic historigraphy. In general, I find his arguments convincing. He, of course, is for a hybrid approach that would allow individual historians to mix and match these different approaches to the body of historical facts. He definitely feels there needs to be a further mixing of the social historical approach with the others. I would offer Sean Wilentz' recent The Rise of American Democracy as an exemplar.
I would also comment that I think a lot of the controversy that Gibson so brilliantly delineates was caused by the fact that none of the historians took seriously enough the basic datum that the actors in this period were working politicians, lawyers, merchants, farmers, etc. Yes, people like Madison, Jefferson, and Wilson read a lot. Really a lot. But I doubt if more then a couple of them were systematic philosophers who took the time to study (say) Locke, Hume and Harrington enough to note all the incompatibilities and to decide which one they agreed with. They were absorbed by the everyday details of governance more than by philosophical distinctions. I may be wrong. In his final chapter, Gibson mentions a few historians, like Peter Onuf, who have made this point. I would also like to mention the fine recent book by Max Edling on The Federalist that drives home this point.
I hope I have given an impression of the scope and compression of this book. I have read about 90% of the works that Gibson refers to but I learned something about all of them that I missed. I have mentioned in my music reviews my respect for those artists who devote themselves to the music of another. This fine historical work is impressive in that same way. It has taken Alan Gibson years to understand the work of scores of other historians so well that he can explicate their achievements with such concision. I found myself frequently marveling at what I was reading as I was reading this book. Isn't that why we read history?
I cannot recommend this book highly enough.

Alan Gibson's new book is incredibly useful for anyone who reads a lot about the founding of the American republic. What Gibson wants to do and succeeds in doing is to provide an overview of the different post-WWII schools of interpretation about the founding that is both nuanced and balance. It is by any standard a remarkable work of synthetic scholarship. It should be read by all majors in American history- not necessarily to agreee with but as an exemplar of how to organize an overview of a field.
Gibson examines in 101 very tightly written pages (plus fourty pages of meaty footnotes) the "fundamental assumptions" and the "deeper ideological and methodological differences between schools...of interpretation that on the surface differ only about the interpretation of the facts" (p.xi). I have read deeply in this area continuously for the last fourteen or so years and I am in awe of Gibson's achievement.
Any story of the post WWII historigraphy about the founding has to really start with what that historigraphy is reacting against- the work of Charles Beard and the Progressive school. Gibson sees their work as based on two basic precepts: 1. the motives of the Founders cannot be ascertained by their writings and 2. that economic determinism was the key to understanding American history (p.7). Basing his empirical research on these precepts, Beard argued that the Constitution was an anti-democratic document that was motivated by the property interests of incipient capitalists. Beard supported his arguments with empirical research about the property holdings of those people who wrote and ratified the Constitution.
The post war period saw the reemergence of a consensus history that can be broadly categorized as liberal. Instead of emphasizing the class structure of the Founding period, this schools emphasizes "the continuity throughout American history of the middle-class structure of American society and the hegemony of liberal values such as the sanctity of property, economic individualism and democracy" (p.15). The methodology of this school of thought understands the motives of historical actors based on their own self-understanding. Gibson sees three major variants of the contemporary liberal school- 1. a triumverate of "Neo-Lockeans" (Joyce Appleby, Isaac Kramnick and John Patrick Diggins), 2. students of Leo Strauss (such as Paul Rahe) and 3. those who see liberalism as the core of a multi-tradition approach (p. 16). Gibson goes on to explore the work of each variant in a series of perfect short book reviews of the major works of these schools. Really many of us who review books on Amazon would do well to read Gibson's book as an object lesson in writing book reviews. His review of Rahe's Republics: Ancient and Modern on pp.18-21 almost makes me want to disown the one I wrote on Amazon.
Gibson next delineates the basic precepts of the republican synthesis. This group of scholars draws heavily on the work of Clifford Geertz and rely on a theory of ideology in their understanding of the founders. This theory allow them to mediate critically against both the idealist of the Liberal school and the Progressives. Ideologies are socially conditioned means of organizing the otherwise buzzing confusion of experience. They place a structure on our thought that is both confining and conditioning(p.23). Gibson nicely quotes Lance Banning on this: "...Sometimes this intellectual universe is so well structured and has so strong a hold that it can virtually determine not only the ways in which a society will express its hopes and discontents but also the central problems with which it will be concerned." (p. 23 of Gibson quoting Banning)
As such, ideologies make possible the self-understanding of historical actors. So what the writings of the Founders may reveal is not their musings on transhistorical truths or their rationalizations of their economic interests but the structure of the ideologies that were available to the actors. This school has focused on the civic humanist tradition as being the dominant language of discourse for the Founders. This chapter includes superb readings of Pocock, Wood, Banning and Bailyn all within 14 pages. Do you begin to see why I am so impressed?
Next, Gibson tackles a group of writers (Wills, Adair, McDonald, Yarbrough) who want to emphasize the influence of the Scottish Enlightenment (SE)on the Founding. Gibson notes that the SE provided the Founders with many of the preachers and educators who formed their thought. Madison, Monroe, Jefferson, Hamilton, Wilson, Rush all studied with Scots either here or in Scotland (p.38) The SE provided the founders with the idea of the 'invisible hand', the 'division of labor', the stadial theory of social and economic development along with moral-sense and common-sense philosophy philosophy.
Gibson goes on to examine those who try to combine some or all of the above schools in a multiple-traditions approach. Again, there are some here who do so with liberalism as the core approach to which the others are seen as supports. Gibson sees Michael Zuckert as the most sophisticated of these scholars. Gibson's review of the work of Rogers Smith and his book Civic Ideals was the part of this chapter that I found the most provocative. Smith is willing to posit that there are parts of our intellectual traditions that are inherently irrational and based on ascription. I have to wait until I read Smith's book for myself but I think his approach could be usefully applied to the states rights tradition of constitutional interpretation.
Finally, Gibson examines recent works of social history especially those that focus on feminist contributions to our understanding of the Founding, on the contribution of native americans and on how recent understanding of the issues surrounding slavery have transformed our understanding of the Founders. The last section is particularly strong.
In his final chapter, Gibson tries to examine what he feels each approach has to offer a synthetic historigraphy. In general, I find his arguments convincing. He, of course, is for a hybrid approach that would allow individual historians to mix and match these different approaches to the body of historical facts. He definitely feels there needs to be a further mixing of the social historical approach with the others. I would offer Sean Wilentz' recent The Rise of American Democracy as an exemplar.
I would also comment that I think a lot of the controversy that Gibson so brilliantly delineates was caused by the fact that none of the historians took seriously enough the basic datum that the actors in this period were working politicians, lawyers, merchants, farmers, etc. Yes, people like Madison, Jefferson, and Wilson read a lot. Really a lot. But I doubt if more then a couple of them were systematic philosophers who took the time to study (say) Locke, Hume and Harrington enough to note all the incompatibilities and to decide which one they agreed with. They were absorbed by the everyday details of governance more than by philosophical distinctions. I may be wrong. In his final chapter, Gibson mentions a few historians, like Peter Onuf, who have made this point. I would also like to mention the fine recent book by Max Edling on The Federalist that drives home this point.
I hope I have given an impression of the scope and compression of this book. I have read about 90% of the works that Gibson refers to but I learned something about all of them that I missed. I have mentioned in my music reviews my respect for those artists who devote themselves to the music of another. This fine historical work is impressive in that same way. It has taken Alan Gibson years to understand the work of scores of other historians so well that he can explicate their achievements with such concision. I found myself frequently marveling at what I was reading as I was reading this book. Isn't that why we read history?
I cannot recommend this book highly enough.

The book description sounds pretty good but I only got half way through it before my head hurt. Sounds like Gibson knows his stuff and has researched it thoroughly. He has a pretty good tennis serve but his overheads are weak. I am sure the founding fathers will forgive him for that.