Book Nook Cafe discussion
Group Read
>
Founding Brothers - April 2009
I have the book and began reading. I'm not sure how much I like the author's style of writing but I really want to read this book.
I am really struggling with this book. I'm finding it way too dry for my taste. I'll finish it, but with my teeth gritted. I do find some interesting tidbits in each story, but for the most part I feel as if I am completing an assignment for school. Sorry!
I have about 25 more pages left in Team of Rivals to read. Than I plan to read Lazy B . I need to change it up before I dive back into another early U.S. history book.
Than it's Easter weekend.
So, I am thinking I won't start FB until the 13th or so.
Sorry to hear you aren't finding this Pulitzer Prize winner to your liking. :(
Maybe once people begin discussing it, it will come more alive for you. At least it's a slender book!
Alias, I'm looking forward to the discussion. It may spark me. I know the book is a Pulitzer Prize winner, but that doesn't always equate with good reading.
Yes, sometimes the Pulitzer Prize winners can be a bit dry. But this book is much more condensed than Team of Rivals for sure. I read only the first chapter so far and am looking forward to his take on the Duel between Hamilton and Burr which is next.Bobbie
Don't get me wrong about Founding Brothers. I am learning things I did not know, and fleshing out other facts that had gotten fuzzy over the years. I'm into the chapter on the Adams/Jefferson run for the presidency and find it very interesting. Those of you who love history are probably going to enjoy this book immensely. I tend to read from an emotional standpoint and often find myself in books. I'm a "feelings" sort of person, so a dryer book is more difficult for me to engage in as I read. You all know that because I slant my group discussions personally. I've tried to move past that, but it is who I am. Founding Brothers is going to make that a bit more difficult, but I'm ready and willing to join the discussion if I can. Knowing my bent for personalizing to make things more real, you'll have to laugh when you hear that as I read, the historical men are all being played by the same actors who played them in the HBO series on Adams. : )
Mine are all played by the actors in the musical 1776. LOLKate, I definitely understand what you are saying about Founding Fathers. While I like to read history we are tending to read a lot of non-fiction lately and I do mix it up with some lighter stuff for my own fun. Right now I am reading a delightful crime novel written by Richard Belzer (Munch on Law and Order) that is called "I am not a cop, I just play one on TV." It is very funny and a good diversion.
Oh, Barbara, thanks for the Belzer title. I was unaware he'd written anything. He has a great wit, so i look forward to reading it. As for Founding Brothers, the new-to-me facts are the fun part of history, so i like it. However, i can undestand what you are saying, Kate. As Barbara wrote, after reading TEAM OF RIVALS, this book seems almost lightweight in style. :-) I'm looking forward to discussing this one with ya'll. I haven't seen the HBO series so my vision of the guys are the old paintings of them...you know, like on the dollar bills.
madrano wrote: "Oh, Barbara, thanks for the Belzer title. I was unaware he'd written anything. He has a great wit, so i look forward to reading it. As for Founding Brothers, the new-to-me facts are the fun par..."
I wasn't aware that Belz had written anything either and when I picked it up given the title I thought it was an autobiography. But he is a character in the book and since it takes place in NYC -- well, you know me.
Chapter 2 -- The DuelI really learned a lot about the Duel that I didn't know. Actually, more about what led up to the Duel.
This is why I still like to read History because invariably there is always something to learn.
Bobbie57 wrote: "Chapter 2 -- The DuelThis is why I still like to read History because invariably there is always something to learn. ..."
============================
That is what I enjoy, too. For me learning is fun and entertaining. That's probably why I tend to read more non fiction.
Bobbie57 wrote: "Chapter 2 -- The DuelI really learned a lot about the Duel that I didn't know. Actually, more about what led up to the Duel.
This is why I still like to read History because invariably there i..."
Yes, the Duel was one of those instances where I thougth I knew everything there was to know and ended up finding out many new points of interest. : ) See? I don't totally hate it, it just isnt' my type of book. Doesn't mean I can't learn from it.
Poor, defensive Kate >> See? I don't totally hate it, it just isnt' my type of book. Doesn't mean I can't learn from it. <<Ah, ya li'l Sweet 'Tater! We understand. I was more familiar with Ellis's writing style, having recently finished another of his. For me this sometimes is an issue, too.
Gosh, I hadn't even gotten on the list for this. When is the discussion supposed to start?I'm not sure I'm up for another history book now even though I love history!
Cathy, FB is our April read. Some people start on the first, others on the 10th. It's really a month long conversation. We are flexible. Have you finished TOR?
Founding Brothers is a slender book.
Alias Reader wrote: "Cathy, FB is our April read. Some people start on the first, others on the 10th. It's really a month long conversation. We are flexible. Have you finished TOR?
Founding Brothers is a sl..."
------
I have about 50 pages left....
I've started FB!! That's about all I can say for now.Will try to comment as I go.
I started to read FB this afternoon. After reading Lazy B, what a pleasure this is to read coherent, literate sentences.I'm starting the Duel chapter.
The DinnerSince I am supposed to read a book titled "Dinner at Mr. Jefferson's" later in the year for my F2F book club, I am wondering if this is the same dinner?
In any case, what I have found in this book is a true talent on the part of the author to humanize these men. And the background on Madison was more than I ever knew. Also the politics and stories of compromise with Hamilton made it seem not only real, but modern. The more things change the more they stay the same.
I'm enjoying this book more than I thought I would. I thought it would be just another history book, but actually it isn't.
Barbara
Barbara, yes, that is the same dinner the Charles Cerami book covers. Details is what i presume we'll get in the book length work. I have it in my possession, albeit temporarily, and am looking forward to reading it after we complete FB.You mention what i like most about Ellis's writing, Barbara. His subjects become human and he isn't afraid to address their foibles. For me, Ellis was the one who helped but the dichotomy of the slavery issue & the founding brothers quest for a new nation into a perspective i could better understand, even though i disliked that part of the outcome.
deborah
Reading about the slavery issue from the time of the founding brothers and then reading about Lincoln's agonizing over the Emancipation issue and even thinking about resettlement of former slaves in Team of Rivals puts things into a truly interesting context. I thought I might be reading one history book too many but it has been thought provoking.Barbara
The Duel - Chapter 1Barbara: I thought I might be reading one history book too many but it has been thought provoking.
--------------------------
I am finding it reinforces the concepts for me. And it also helps me put things in context. All of which adds depth to my knowledge.
As for FB, I just finished the first chapter, The Duel.
I haven't read much on this period as an adult, so I am finding this quite enjoyable.
When I read, page 43, that there were 36 ballots in the House of Reps, to elect the president, all I could think of was the absolute tizzy cable news would be in if this should happen today.
When one reads about the Founding Fathers along with the great presidents like, Washington, Lincoln, and FDR, you really come to appreciate how really lucky we were to have great men rise to the task and keep the great American experiment going. It sort of make one wonder if this miracle could ever be duplicated in other countries.
Alias
Bobbie, when I click on your avatar to see your book shelf, I see you listed 12 books as read. However, you haven't rated most of them. :(
Traveler wrote: "I have the book and began reading. I'm not sure how much I like the author's style of writing but I really want to read this book. "-------------------
T, you may find the preface: The Generation, a little hard to get into. However, I think once you start chapter 1, you will find the style more readable.
Alias
Alias.. you're right. It is getting easier. And I have to reinforce your comments on how amazing these men were and how unbelievable it is that they accomplished what they did when they did. I've always been amazed. And I think NOT having CNN or press around was a big help.I also am reminded that this country has been through many rough times and has survived. And we will survive what is going on now even though I was concerned earlier this year. But I also believe people sometimes need to go through "bad" times.
But back to the book... I'm looking forward to reading more of it and the posts are helping.
Alias Reader wrote: "Bobbie, when I click on your avatar to see your book shelf, I see you listed 12 books as read. However, you haven't rated most of them. :("I thought I would go through my more recent list for 2009 and then I will go back in a few days and do the rating and make comments. Then I will go to my old lists. Getting there.
Barbara
While I think the writing is very literate and a pleasure to read, I wish the author gave a little more background before he launches into the main topic of each chapter. alias
I hadn't noticed a problem but this is my second time to read the book, so this may be why. Did you want more background on the history of the topic itself or the people involved?deborah
madrano wrote: "I hadn't noticed a problem but this is my second time to read the book, so this may be why. Did you want more background on the history of the topic itself or the people involved?deborah"
I like the background on the individuals and their personalities. I enjoy having historical figures fleshed out with even more info than I had before.
This is true, Kate. It may be that i'm filling in more myself because i've read bios of several of the men mentioned thus far--Hamilton, Washington, Jefferson and Adams. And i've visited some of the places mentioned, as well. So when i read about Jefferson's dinner, i have in mind not only the dining room but even the bedroom where the Madison's stayed at Monticello. Ha! That explains why i'm satisfied--i'm creating a movie in my own darned head!
madrano wrote: "This is true, Kate. It may be that i'm filling in more myself because i've read bios of several of the men mentioned thus far--Hamilton, Washington, Jefferson and Adams. And i've visited some of th..."I do that too. I've also been to most of the places mentioned, and that makes it all more real for me. I ended up enjoying the book, just not as much as I had hoped. No big deal.
Discussion Questions for Founding Brothers
Part 1
Discussion Questions May Contain SPOILERS
1. The anecdote that Benjamin Rush liked to repeat about an overheard conversation between Benjamin Harrison and Elbridge Gerry on July 4, 1776, makes clear that the signers of the Declaration of Independence felt some doubt about their chances of surviving their revolutionary act. As Ellis points out, if the British commanders had been more aggressive, "The signers of the Declaration would . . . have been hunted down, tried, and executed for treason, and American history would have flowed forward in a wholly different direction" [p. 5:]. Why is it so difficult to grasp this notion of the new nation's utter fragility? How successful is Founding Brothers in taking the reader back in time, in order to witness the contingencies of a historical gamble in which "sheer chance, pure luck" [p. 5:] were instrumental in determining the outcome?
2. Ellis has said, "We have no mental pictures that make the revolutionary generation fully human in ways that link up with our own time. . . . These great patriarchs have become Founding Fathers, and it is psychologically quite difficult for children to reach a realistic understanding of their parents, who always loom larger-than-life as icons we either love or hate." How does Founding Brothers address this problem, and how does it manage to humanize our image of the founders? How does the book's title relate to this issue?
3. What was really at stake in the disagreement and duel between Aaron Burr and Alexander Hamilton? If Hamilton felt that the disparaging statements he had made about Burr were true, should he have lied in order to save his life? Was this merely a war over words? Did words have more significance then than they do now? What role did newspapers play in the drama, and how is the media's role different or similar today?
4. In congressional debates in 1790 about the possible abolition of slavery, Georgia representative James Jackson attacked the abolitionist Quakers as "outright lunatics" [p. 97:] and went on to say, "If it were a crime, as some assert but which I deny, the British nation is answerable for it, and not the present inhabitants, who now hold that species of property in question" [p. 98:]. Does Jackson's refusal to name "that species of property" point to his own moral discomfort with owning enslaved human beings? To what degree were the founders complicit in this deliberate refusal to name and acknowledge the moral problem of slavery?
5. Because of the founders' refusal to press for abolition, the slavery question was bequeathed to Abraham Lincoln to solve--and the Civil War illustrated just how divisive the issue was. How accurate was George Washington's belief that "slavery was a cancer on the body politic of America that could not at present be removed without killing the patient" [p. 158:]? Should the nation's leaders have pressed harder, given that "the further one got from 1776, the lower the revolutionary fires burned and the less imperative the logic of the revolutionary ideology seemed" [p. 104:]? What difference might it have made in the racial currents of contemporary American life if slavery had been abolished in the early days of the nation?
6. What does Ellis mean when he says that the public figures on which he focuses in this book were "America's first and, in many respects, its only natural aristocracy" [p. 13:]? In what sense is this true?
7. How does the character of George Washington come across, as Ellis presents him and in the quoted extracts of the farewell address? How does Washington measure up to the mythology that surrounded him even in his own time? What qualities made Washington so indispensable to the new nation?
http://www.readinggroupguides.com/guides...
Founding Brothers Part 2
Discussion Questions May Contain SPOILERS
7. How does the character of George Washington come across, as Ellis presents him and in the quoted extracts of the farewell address? How does Washington measure up to the mythology that surrounded him even in his own time? What qualities made Washington so indispensable to the new nation?
8. Ellis focuses more intensively on the plight of the slaves than that of the Indians, but he does point out that Washington addressed their situation with the suggestion that they abandon their hunter-gatherer way of life and assimilate themselves into the general population as farmers [p. 159:]. Was this a viable solution, or merely a pragmatic one? What other solutions might have been offered at the time?
9. What is most surprising about Thomas Jefferson's character, as presented by Ellis? Which aspects of his personality, or which particular actions or decisions, seem incongruous in the man who wrote the idealistic words of the Declaration of Independence?
10. What is most impressive about Abigail Adams's intervention on her husband's behalf in his quarrel with Thomas Jefferson? Is it possible to compare the political partnership of John and Abigail Adams with, for example, that of Hillary and Bill Clinton?
11. Ellis has said of Founding Brothers, "If there is a method to my madness in the book, it is rooted in the belief that readers prefer to get their history through stories. Each chapter is a self-contained story about a propitious moment when big things got decided. . . . In a sense, I have formed this founding generation into a kind of repertory company, then put them into dramatic scenes which, taken together, allow us to witness that historic production called the founding of the United States." Does his focus on creating separate narrative units succeed in making the complex history of the founders simpler to penetrate and understand? Are there any drawbacks to presenting history this way?
12. Ellis says that the founders were always self- conscious about how posterity would view their decisions and their behavior. For instance, Adams's efforts on behalf of a "more realistic, nonmythologized version of the American Revolution" were partly motivated by his wounded vanity, his effort to get rid of versions of the story that "failed to provide him with a starring role in the drama" [p. 217:]. How similar or different are more recent presidents' efforts to shape the historical portrayal of their own terms in office, as with presidential libraries and such?
13. Ellis notes that his ambition with Founding Brothers was "to write a modest-sized account of a massive historical subject . . . without tripping over the dead bodies of my many scholarly predecessors." In search of a structure in which "less could be more" Ellis takes as a model Lytton Strachey's Eminent Victorians (1918). Strachey wrote that the historian "will row out over the great ocean of material, and lower down into it, here and there, a little bucket, which will bring up to the light of day some characteristic specimen, from those far depths, to be examined with a careful curiosity" [p. ix:]. How does this approach differ from other historical narratives or biographies of historical figures that you have read, and how does it affect your reading experience?
14. In the conflict between Republicans and Federalists described by Ellis throughout the book, readers can understand the origins of party factionalism that is a strong factor in American politics to this day. If, as Ellis writes, "The dominant intellectual legacy of the Revolution, enshrined in the Declaration of Indepen-dence, stigmatized all concentrated political power and even . . . depicted any energetic expression of governmental authority as an alien force that all responsible citizens ought to repudiate and, if possible, overthrow" [p. 11:], what compromises were made in order to bring a stable national government to fruition? Does the apparent contradiction between Republican and Federalist principles still create instability in the American system?
15. In recent years historians have tended to avoid focusing on such issues as leadership and character, and more is being written about popular movements and working people whose lives exemplify a sort of democratic norm. Ellis clearly goes against this trend in offering Founding Brothers as "a polite argument against the scholarly grain" [p. 12:]. Does he effectively convince his readers that the founding of the American nation was, in fact, largely accomplished by a handful of extraordinary individuals?
http://www.readinggroupguides.com/guides...
Page 82 " The Constitution of the United States, only recently ratified, specifically prohibits slave trade until 1808. Article 1 Section 9"
You are going to think I am an idiot. I know this was discussed in TOR, but I just sort of glossed over it, because I didn't understand what they were talking about. I didn't know that the Constitution had a sunset provision that allowed slavery for 20 years. When it was mentioned in TOR, I thought they were talking about some other right that they were interpreting as involving states rights and property rights. I didn't know there was a specific reference to slavery.
I feel like such a dope for not knowing this. :(
It isn't slavery that sunsetted in 20 years -- it is the slave trade. Two different things.And this provision in the Constitution is pretty obscure. Don't remember ever teaching it or learning it for that matter. So don't beat yourself up at all.
Barbara
Thanks, Barbara. You are correct that is important difference. However, I still think it would be an important thing to learn in school. Though I feel better if you, a history major, didn't know about this. :)
It is confusing but somehow i managed to ferret it out--probably from yet another book or article i read (or even a movie--Amazing Grace?). ANYway, Goodwin sketchily mentioned it in TOR but didn't flesh it out. Elsewhere, Alias, you made note of the fact they apparently consciously decided to separate the financial center of the country from the political one. I'd forgotten that it was deliberate and well considered. In fact, until reading the book (the first time) i wondered how it worked out that way & assumed it was a fluke.
The questions are great to consider, thanks for posting them, Alias. One thing this book does is illustrate how precarious their actions were. Today they are set in stone, so we don't give much thought to what they risked. Their families could have been ruined & left without a breadwinner, father, husband. Yet those remarkable women, who had no stake in the rebellion as far as suffrage goes, supported and were often the ones to implement the economic adjustments.
I knew little about the duel until reading the book. It's amazing what sort of press they had back then. Different but not necessarily any better than what we have today. Overall, i'd prefer today's because you at least have an opportunity to get your "side" out quickly! Otoh, a word is quick to say but slow to print, so that some reconsiderations could occur.
More later.
deborah
Alias Reader wrote: "Discussion Questions for Founding Brothers 5. Because of the founders' refusal to press for abolition, the slavery question was bequeathed to Abraham Lincoln to solve--and the Civil War illustrated just how divisive the issue was. How accurate was George Washington's belief that "slavery was a cancer on the body politic of America that could not at present be removed without killing the patient" [p. 158:]? Should the nation's leaders have pressed harder, given that "the further one got from 1776, the lower the revolutionary fires burned and the less imperative the logic of the revolutionary ideology seemed" [p. 104:]? What difference might it have made in the racial currents of contemporary American life if slavery had been abolished in the early days of the nation?"
I have wondered and thought about this issue since i first read this book a few years ago. Would the United States of America have been created if the founders insisted on settling this problem at the time of the Revolutionary War? We know it was wrong, many of our founders knew it was wrong and establishing the new nation took priority. To them it appears to have seemed pragmatic. The fact that both Washington & Jefferson, to name but two, continued to own slaves throughout their lives makes me wonder if that practicality was merely about creating the USA. It certainly was a convenient pragmatism. Had these two specific men given up their slaves even after the stand they ultimately took with the constitution, i'd feel much better about them and believe they truly understood the impact their compromise held.
Thinking about this issue today is so different from looking at it in their time. Yes, we are all grateful the union was formed but it was done on the backs of slaves. I cannot imagine how i would feel knowing this if i were a descendent of slaves.
deborah
Good question, Deborah. The same one still applied years later when Lincoln was president. I recall in TOR the author said the Founding Fathers kicked the can down the road on this issue. Though as Ellis points out in the preface we have the benifit of hindsight. If they didn't hold the Union together, that wouldn't have made things better. I guess it was a case of first things first. Of course, easy to say when you are not the slave. Even though I am only around page 100, I am hoping to finish or at least make a good dent in the book by Monday, as I have about 5 hours of train rides coming up as I visit family for the Easter holiday.
Alias, have a pleasant train ride. It sounds lovely--all that time to read, relax & look out the window. Then, family time! Enjoy!deborah
deborah: Alias, have a pleasant train ride. It sounds lovely--all that time to read, relax & look out the window. Then, family time! Enjoy! --------------
Once I get off the subway, the Metro North train ride is quite nice. It rides right along the Hudson river.
Unfortunetly, it is raining quite hard today. :( I hope it lets up soon. So I can be on my way.
Wishing you all a nice weekend, and happy holiday, too!
Alias.. Where are you going... or where did you go? lol Also, I wanted to ask you a NY question....
I'll do it under another thread since this is FB.
About FB... I'm reading about the Duel and all I can think is "what were they thinking". For intelligent men to settle things in this way... I know it was the times but.... what were they thinking?
Traveler/Tricia, what were they thinking? And the fact that no one looked because they knew it was illegal astounds, too! Before reading this chapter i thought duels were usually "to the death", probably because this one (the only one i really know much about--or thought i did!) ended in death. Give me a duel on paper any day!deborah
Traveler: Alias.. Where are you going... or where did you go? lol -----------------------
Just visiting relatives in the Hudson Valley for the Easter holiday.
To keep this post on topic, I am almost finished with FB. I have one more chapter to go.
I think the writing was very good ( except for the preface). I loved the way Ellis turns a phrase.
The subject matter, for me, seemed to focus way too much on smaller details and minutia. I guess I would rather read a more general book on this topic. I don't have a detailed background on the Revolutionary period, so at times I felt like I was coming in on the middle of a conversation. Clearly the fault lies with my inadequate background and not the book.
I would probably only recommend this book to a Revolutionary war buff, not the general history reader.
I had a question from page 126. The author writes,"Paine's already questionable reputation..."
Was this because of the open letter he wrote about Washington (p126) or was there something else that tainted his rep. I didn't know he had a "questionable rep." Was it because of the pamphlet "The Age of Reason (1793–94), the book advocating deism and arguing against Christian doctrines." as wiki notes?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_P...
This is just one more case where I feel the author assumes the reader has more background in the subject matter than I think is reasonable for the average reader to have.
I haven't gotten there yet Alias but agree with your comment about the author. He frustrates me sometimes.
I am reminded that I saw Robert Caro on Bill Moyers the other day. Caro wrote these huge books about Lyndon Johnson. He commented that he was always in conversations with his editor about cutting the length of his works which were almost too long to be published.So -- the point is -- not every historian thinks he is writing or needs to write for the "average reader." IMO It is up to us to choose the books that are appropriate to our own level.
Barbara
Alias,And now to Thomas Paine. I went to your link to see what you had read. I think the answer to your question lies in the mention that he was "radical". Not always regarded favorably even to this day.
And the whole paragraph regarding his involvment in France, even to the extent of being elected to the Council in France. Pretty wierd don't you think? Might not have been regarded as really loyal to the United States. And the Age of Reason also for sure.
Oh -- the author Historian has probably done what he would have thought was a success. That is he made you think about it and look for more material. I was lazy and just read what he wrote and said OK. LOL
Barbara
I had already written that I thought the book wasn't in fact written for the average reader and I decided that I wasn't quite sure why I felt that. Then I went back to reading and I had a thought -- any book with that many footnotes is not written for the average reader IMO.
Please post your comments in this thread. And put the page # or chapter # at the top of your post.
Thanks !
Founding Brothers The Revolutionary Generation
Book Description -Amazon
In this landmark work of history, the National Book Award—winning author of American Sphinx explores how a group of greatly gifted but deeply flawed individuals–Hamilton, Burr, Jefferson, Franklin, Washington, Adams, and Madison–confronted the overwhelming challenges before them to set the course for our nation.
The United States was more a fragile hope than a reality in 1790. During the decade that followed, the Founding Fathers–re-examined here as Founding Brothers–combined the ideals of the Declaration of Independence with the content of the Constitution to create the practical workings of our government. Through an analysis of six fascinating episodes–Hamilton and Burr’s deadly duel, Washington’s precedent-setting Farewell Address, Adams’ administration and political partnership with his wife, the debate about where to place the capital, Franklin’s attempt to force Congress to confront the issue of slavery and Madison’s attempts to block him, and Jefferson and Adams’ famous correspondence–Founding Brothers brings to life the vital issues and personalities from the most important decade in our nation’s history.