statman's review against another edition
4.0
Another book in the Oxford History series. All of them excellent and I would recommend all of them if you like history. This one covers the 25 years after the Constitutional Convention. The main premise is that this time period was critical to the establishment of our current form of culture and government. During this time America changed from a republic to a democracy contrary to many of the original ideas of the founding fathers. It is a long book but well worth your time.
raruther's review against another edition
informative
reflective
slow-paced
4.25
Empire of Liberty is split into two primary sections: a chronological history of the United States from 1789 through 1800, focusing on the political struggle between the Republicans and Federalists (the first 300ish pages of the book), which is solid but unexceptional (I preferred John Ferling's account in the last third of A Leap in the Dark), and a longitudinal sociological survey of various aspects of Jeffersonian America where the book really hits its stride. Every chapter from "Republican Society" on has something interesting to say about the unintended consequences of the Jeffersonian political revolution for American society, religion, and culture.
davehershey's review against another edition
5.0
The stories of the Revolutionary War and that of the Civil War are both fascinating to any fan of history. Last year I enjoyed reading the entries from the Oxford History of the United States on each of those two time periods. I figured it was about time to read about what happened in the interim, so I read through Gordon Wood’s Empire of Liberty.
It was fantastic.
Here are a few of the things I took away from this great book:
*When people say “the Founding Fathers believed” they either ignore or forget the fact that the founding fathers were diverse and had different views.
*I was surprised that so many in early America expected there to eventually be a king, and that most were okay with that.
*I really liked Alexander Hamilton, he came out of this as my favorite founding father. On the other hand, Wood made Washington appear kind of as a weak president, being pulled between Hamilton on one side and Jackson on the other. In other words, I do not feel like I knew Washington better after this book, but you really get to know Hamilton, Jefferson and Madison.
*I already knew I would like the religious history chapter, but I was surprised how interesting I found the chapters on economics and judiciary. The chapter telling of the growth of the Supreme Court and the story of John Marshall was interesting.
*I also enjoyed learning more about the war of 1812.
*Finally, the existence of slavery in early America continues to blow my mind. It is depressing how so many who spoke so highly of freedom and liberty did not pass this to the slaves. Further, it was incredibly sad to learn that right after the revolution most in the south thought slavery would just end but a variety of reasons led to the growth and defense of slavery to new levels.
It was fantastic.
Here are a few of the things I took away from this great book:
*When people say “the Founding Fathers believed” they either ignore or forget the fact that the founding fathers were diverse and had different views.
*I was surprised that so many in early America expected there to eventually be a king, and that most were okay with that.
*I really liked Alexander Hamilton, he came out of this as my favorite founding father. On the other hand, Wood made Washington appear kind of as a weak president, being pulled between Hamilton on one side and Jackson on the other. In other words, I do not feel like I knew Washington better after this book, but you really get to know Hamilton, Jefferson and Madison.
*I already knew I would like the religious history chapter, but I was surprised how interesting I found the chapters on economics and judiciary. The chapter telling of the growth of the Supreme Court and the story of John Marshall was interesting.
*I also enjoyed learning more about the war of 1812.
*Finally, the existence of slavery in early America continues to blow my mind. It is depressing how so many who spoke so highly of freedom and liberty did not pass this to the slaves. Further, it was incredibly sad to learn that right after the revolution most in the south thought slavery would just end but a variety of reasons led to the growth and defense of slavery to new levels.
lenzen's review against another edition
5.0
These days it seems that most those on the left, now that they have a slight majority, want to move us away from being a Constitutional Republic to being more of a pure Democracy. This book provides some great history on why the Founders went with a Republic versus pure Democracy. To put it briefly, going into the Constitutional Convention they found that pure democracies in the states had tended to not respect individual rights, especially property rights. Pure Democracies were also prone to spend irresponsibly and then pass laws to cancel debt or devalue their currencies.
Other early struggles to put checks on pure democracy involved what role the court should have in the government. Initially it was debated whether the Supreme Court should have the power to declare laws of Congress invalid. The SCOTUS was ultimately recognized to have this power, but Jefferson and many Democratic Republicans at the time were furious.
Another central struggle described in the book is that between Federalists and Jeffersonian Republicans. The Federalists essentially were aiming to emulate Britain with a "noble" class of citizens elected to rule but after that not interfered with much by "lesser" classes. Jefferson wanted a greater role for "common" and "middling" "sorts". Jefferson and Hamilton are stars of this conflict.
The author has an interesting interpretation on the War of 1812 that I had not previously heard. Essentially the War was a long time in coming after economic efforts had failed to establish that the US was its own sovereign power to be respected on par with European powers. Wood admires how Madison conducted the war while remaining true to his Republican principles (no individual rights violated even in time of national crisis).
The author is quite objective and does not seem to be pushing an agenda. Although he clearly admires Jefferson he presents the Federalist cause fairly. He is not a hero worshiper of the Founders. He describes their weaknesses and how they fell short of their ideals: especially in the treatment of women and slaves. At the same time he does not vilify them. He does a good job of being an objective historian.
The book was more exciting to read than expected. I thought it would be a chore after I had the books in the series on the Civil and Revolutionary Wars. I was pleasantly surprised there were very few dull parts. I would rate it as a more interesting than The Glorious Cause (on the Revolutionary War) but slightly less so than Battle Cry of Freedom (on the Civil War) about on par with What Hath God Wrought (1815-1848).
Other early struggles to put checks on pure democracy involved what role the court should have in the government. Initially it was debated whether the Supreme Court should have the power to declare laws of Congress invalid. The SCOTUS was ultimately recognized to have this power, but Jefferson and many Democratic Republicans at the time were furious.
Another central struggle described in the book is that between Federalists and Jeffersonian Republicans. The Federalists essentially were aiming to emulate Britain with a "noble" class of citizens elected to rule but after that not interfered with much by "lesser" classes. Jefferson wanted a greater role for "common" and "middling" "sorts". Jefferson and Hamilton are stars of this conflict.
The author has an interesting interpretation on the War of 1812 that I had not previously heard. Essentially the War was a long time in coming after economic efforts had failed to establish that the US was its own sovereign power to be respected on par with European powers. Wood admires how Madison conducted the war while remaining true to his Republican principles (no individual rights violated even in time of national crisis).
The author is quite objective and does not seem to be pushing an agenda. Although he clearly admires Jefferson he presents the Federalist cause fairly. He is not a hero worshiper of the Founders. He describes their weaknesses and how they fell short of their ideals: especially in the treatment of women and slaves. At the same time he does not vilify them. He does a good job of being an objective historian.
The book was more exciting to read than expected. I thought it would be a chore after I had the books in the series on the Civil and Revolutionary Wars. I was pleasantly surprised there were very few dull parts. I would rate it as a more interesting than The Glorious Cause (on the Revolutionary War) but slightly less so than Battle Cry of Freedom (on the Civil War) about on par with What Hath God Wrought (1815-1848).
spinnerroweok's review against another edition
4.0
So far, every book in the Oxford History of the U.S. series has been great. This one is no exception. The last chapter really does a lot to explain modern aspects of American culture. I highly recommend.
imclaugh's review against another edition
3.0
Part of the reason one reads Gordon Wood, I suppose, is to delight in his mastery of eighteenth century contemporary primary sources. The delight, as a consequence, is in the experience of reading the book, rather than in increased knowledge of the period or of contemporary academic debates on that period--though they are, of course, inevitable and not at all unwelcome byproducts. However, in this volume, Wood's attempts to be accessible (for I can think of no other excuse for the book's endless and endlessly distracting instances of sloppy and needlessly repetitive prose) work to significantly dampen the reader's pleasure, making the entire experience feeling, frustratingly and unfortunately, like a colossal waste of time.
Oh and PS: not every piece of antebellum history has to end with a lamentation of slavery's evils. Though the passage is actually one of the best rendered in the book, content-wise it's hollow and almost unforgivably cliche.
Bottom line? Hashtag dis(appointed/illusioned).
Oh and PS: not every piece of antebellum history has to end with a lamentation of slavery's evils. Though the passage is actually one of the best rendered in the book, content-wise it's hollow and almost unforgivably cliche.
Bottom line? Hashtag dis(appointed/illusioned).
jstamper2022's review against another edition
5.0
Highly recommend this book, but do it via Audiobook or it'll take forever to get through some parts as it gets very detailed and tedious. This book goes straight to the heart of our political beginnings from rule of law, judicial review, economics, slavery, religion and the lead up and closure of the War of 1812. The fight between Federalists and Jeffersonian Republicanism. It describes the vision our founders had for the nation and we can see from our own knowledge how much didn't pan out as they hoped. Slavery should have ended many, many decades before it did and without war. The deep south made things worse and instilled racism into society where it wasn't previously. Political parties can kill a republic but human nature works against us. Religion was a personal thing and not meant to be in Government. The founders were either not spiritual, deists, or Unitarian Christians which rejected the mystical and supported an enlightened society of reason, science, and the laws of nature.
patrickkanouse's review against another edition
4.0
I just recently finished Gordon Wood's "Empire of Liberty: A History of the Early Republic, 1789-1815," by Oxford University Press. This is volume 2 in the Oxford History of the United States, of which I have read already "The Glorious Cause: The American Revolution, 1763-1789," which was an excellent book. Wood's books is also excellent.
I have seen some reviews by readers that fault the book for is focus on leaders and a few historically remembered people and not for dealing enough with more faceless men and women, Native Americans, or slaves. Yes, a lot of dead white men people these pages--Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Madison, and Hamilton in particular. But that misses, I think, the point Wood's discussion of these--let's face it--critical figures in the beginning of the United States (we do not called them the Founders or Framers for nothing). Throughout the book, Wood puts their ideals in contrast to the realities of the country growing around them. Whether Hamilton's desire for a European military-financial state or Jefferson's agrarian democrats, all see their ideals subverted by realities. Hamilton's dreams collapse with Jefferson's antithetical viewpoint and eventual Democrat-Republican triumph. Jefferson's and Madison's Enlightenment dream of an agrarian democracy that produces enough for it to survive but not much more are overwhelmed with the commericialist and materialist growth of the northern states. Meanwhile, the southern slave states became ever more dependent on slavery. The northern states realized that their hopes for a natural end to slavery were misplaced.
Also, Wood spends considerable time discussing Native Americans, slaves, and the common man and woman. This is, in fact, important to his narrative about the "formation" of an American culture, impossible without including them and how culture became to be either inclusion or in contrast to.
If you are interested in an in-depth and probing study of American history, the first two books in this series are a great place to start. Soon, I will start "What Hath God Wrought: The Transformation of America, 1815-1848."
I have seen some reviews by readers that fault the book for is focus on leaders and a few historically remembered people and not for dealing enough with more faceless men and women, Native Americans, or slaves. Yes, a lot of dead white men people these pages--Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Madison, and Hamilton in particular. But that misses, I think, the point Wood's discussion of these--let's face it--critical figures in the beginning of the United States (we do not called them the Founders or Framers for nothing). Throughout the book, Wood puts their ideals in contrast to the realities of the country growing around them. Whether Hamilton's desire for a European military-financial state or Jefferson's agrarian democrats, all see their ideals subverted by realities. Hamilton's dreams collapse with Jefferson's antithetical viewpoint and eventual Democrat-Republican triumph. Jefferson's and Madison's Enlightenment dream of an agrarian democracy that produces enough for it to survive but not much more are overwhelmed with the commericialist and materialist growth of the northern states. Meanwhile, the southern slave states became ever more dependent on slavery. The northern states realized that their hopes for a natural end to slavery were misplaced.
Also, Wood spends considerable time discussing Native Americans, slaves, and the common man and woman. This is, in fact, important to his narrative about the "formation" of an American culture, impossible without including them and how culture became to be either inclusion or in contrast to.
If you are interested in an in-depth and probing study of American history, the first two books in this series are a great place to start. Soon, I will start "What Hath God Wrought: The Transformation of America, 1815-1848."
agathacrispy's review against another edition
4.0
A great resource for understanding all aspects of the culture that existed in the early American republic.
rachelleahdorn's review against another edition
4.0
I'm almost 3/4 of the way through the book. Whew, it's a full story.
I am listening to an audiobook which is probably a good way to listen and learn while avoiding falling asleep.
I like the story and I find it very interesting but in an NPR/PBS sort of way. There isn't a ton of action or suspense.
I am listening to an audiobook which is probably a good way to listen and learn while avoiding falling asleep.
I like the story and I find it very interesting but in an NPR/PBS sort of way. There isn't a ton of action or suspense.