Analysis Of Founding Brothers By Joseph J. Ellis

The book Founding Brothers written by Joseph J Ellis recounts small moments of history following a few of the men known as the “founding fathers” of America. Through his work he connects these men through their interactions with each other and their very similar lives. The title previews the theme further expounded upon in the book and Ellis’s perspective about how theses founding fathers acted as brothers toward each other in addition to the fathers of The United States of America.

Founding Brothers commences with the account of Alexander Hamilton’s death. In beginning the tale, Ellis gives the succinct version of the story, stating only the moments before shots were exchanged, the basics of the encounter, and the after effects. After giving

the condensed version Ellis starts to explore the exact actions conducted by both men and meaning behind Hamilton’s unintended death.

Before meeting with Burr, Hamilton recorded his thoughts professing that if he die, he wanted all to know that he intended to purposefully waste his allotted shot. Likely, Hamilton in all likeliness spent his shot, for found in a tree at the site a bullet embedded itself in a branch nearby where Burr stood. Unfortunately for Hamilton the duel did not end in the expected outcome with both participants able to walk away, for Burr had hit his target. But had Burr ever intended to truly murder Hamilton? Most likely, the possibility of killing each other evaded true contemplation both men; as a result Burr probably had not wanted to end Hamilton’s life. After realizing his shot had connected with Hamilton, Burr meandered around confounded. His intention had not been to murder Hamilton because by ending Hamilton he would also be ending his career. By killing a “founding father” and the hope of the Federalist Party, as well as the nation, Burr immediately lost all chance of staying in a prominent political position. After giving an explanation of the fallout,

Ellis further explains the motivation behind each man’s action. As shown through countless quotes and events Burr intended on making Hamilton admit to damaging Burr’s career and give some reparation or apology. Equally Hamilton’s actions showcase that he only fueled the fire set in Jeffersonians and Burr. As with most history in hindsight something could have prevented the duel. However, because men have little forethought and pride, neither man could concede without feeling he had lost.
After opening with the duel Ellis tells the story of “The Dinner”. Thomas Jefferson invited Alexander Hamilton and James Madison to his home for dinner in hopes of resolving issues of their respective parties through each of them. Almost miraculously both men agreed to certain terms proposed by the other. Madison asked for Hamilton to advocate for the movement of the nation’s capital to the Potomac in exchange for not aggressively attacking Hamilton’s Financial Plan. Hamilton agreed to the terms thus solving a problem long argued about in Congress. Later on Jefferson regretted his decision to put Congress’s cooperation above public interest. Ellis then goes on to investigate each man’s motivations for agreeing to terms proposed at the diner. He goes on to speculate that Hamilton and Madison with the intent to coerce the other into a deal that was beneficial to them. In the end Ellis concludes that the agreement provided each with benefits. In order to show the true importance of the diner Ellis then expounds upon the events that led up to the diner. Subsequently the rest of the chapter discusses the conversations and arguments that occurred before the agreement and the short term aftermath of passing the bills. Also explored is each man’s role and how necessary each personality was vital to the continuation of America.
In 1790, a scandal broke out in Congress; two delegates proposed ending the African slave trade. Shocked and not at all subdued by the fact that the Constitution banned the discussion of slavery for at least twenty more years Andrew Jackson and Southern delegates went on the defensive. Simultaneously, Northerners and other delegates opposing the slave trade formed another bill proposing the end of slavery. Those in favor of slavery advocated by quoting the Bible, Constitution, and explained the necessity of slaves for agriculture. At this point Benjamin Franklin stepped into the fray and proposed that Congress take whatever action it needed in order to abolish slavery. However, not long after issuing his piece on the matter Franklin died. After his death those who were antislavery lost vigor and eventually all interest. Most claimed that it was the wrong time or that abolishing slavery did not fall under the powers of the Federal Government. In time representatives from the North who had stood by Franklin began to speak ambiguously about the issue and no longer argued against pro-slavery southerners in Congress. With no one to speak up for the cause, except for several Quakers who were minor constituents, the abolition movement in Congress faltered, and America lost its best chance to end slavery before the Civil War.
Next in the chapter named The Farewell Ellis explores Washington’s departure from the presidency. Subsequently Ellis takes care to show the necessity of Washington taking his leave when he did, it established a precedent for a two term office and allowed Washington a reprieve from politics that he had been craving for years. Also examined within the chapter was Washington’s farewell address. Washington warned against challenges the United States faced, and what they should do to combat the problems they would face in the future. Lastly Ellis accurately demonstrates in the book just how vital George Washington was to the foundation of the nation and how ahead of his time he was in terms of political theory.
The title of the book comes into play most in the chapter named the Collaborators. Accurately displayed through documents, including letters from John Adams to his family, friends, and colleagues, Ellis shows the turbulent relationship between Jefferson and Adams during the first decade after the Revolution. Due to the lack of support from Thomas Jefferson Adams decides to rely on support from his wife, who was in her own way a great contributor to post-revolutionary government and society. Evident by the way the couple spoke to each other they were partners who valued the others opinion and tried to support each other through rough times. Often Abigail had to soothe Adams reactionary demeanor. John complained to his wife about the state of political affairs and the problems he had with Jefferson. She tried to console him and urge reconciliation, in the letters she seems to be the optimist, though Ellis paints her more as a realist. Their relationship talked most about politics but within the text there is an obvious affection for each other. Also showcased in the chapter is the relationship between Madison and Jefferson. When Jefferson and Adams lost the vitality of their friendship Adams turned to his wife and Jefferson turned to James Madison. The relationship between Madison and Jefferson was a partnership in which both men supported the further advancement of the other. Madison was very similar to Jefferson in his political beliefs, unlike Adams, and was able to support Jefferson’s by also supporting his ideas. The final pages of the chapter show Abigail’s willingness foe John to resume his friendship with Jefferson, however both men, and Madison, seem to still oppose the idea.
In contrast to the end of The Collaborators, The Friendship shows the reconciliation of Adams and Jefferson. Both men continued to write and talk about each other in a nonchalant manner but they each spoke so often of the other that it is obvious that they missed each other. As more time passed Jefferson and Adams began to reminisce about the years that had passed since the Revolution. Remembrance along with similar view points on important issues facing the American government brought them back together. When they were forced to discuss the issue of slavery in Congress they decided to unite their respective abilities in order to accomplish their goal. Jefferson offended Adams several times after they reconciled but not willing to sacrifice their friendship for pride or risk of hypocrisy Adams decided not to act in his usual reactive manner. They tried to accommodate the other man in order to preserve their peace. In 1826 their
Initially when reading Founding Brothers I found myself rather ambivalent. Ellis attempted to engage readers with a dramatic retelling of events. Perhaps for accomplished readers, who enjoy history, Founding Brothers might present itself as an absolutely riveting tale. However, possibly because I either dislike history as told in the normal fashion, or I read on a lower level than that of his intended audience I found Founding Brothers to exude a pretentious attitude without expressing anything exceptionally innovative.
Throughout the book Ellis used words that any person who lacked a secondary education would not possess. I understood a large percentage of the vocabulary, but I stumbled upon several words, and among readers with a less expansive vocabulary the novel would not be legible without a dictionary on hand. Another criticism I retain, concerning word choice, is that a great deal of the text contained useless adjectives and difficult words which had little to contribute to the overall telling. In addition the information Ellis conveyed in two hundred and fifty pages could have easily been said in a chapter of thirty pages. Consequently, throughout the entirety of the book I waded through fluff sentences before finding one that contain anything vital to the story.
In addition to the structural and grammar intricacies I found disparaging, I also noticed an abundance of problems how the content, that inspired the novel, was presented.

The events Ellis chose to channel in his rendition of history are a series of affairs where the historical record contains a small percentage of absolute facts and a great amount of information remains merely speculative. The qualms I have with Ellis choosing to remark on such uncertain occurrences depends not on the addition of his own theories or the insertion of beliefs held by others, only that he did not always clearly outline what was the truth and what was conjecture. The fact that he did this disappointed me as I feel it is the duty of Historians to present unbiased, or as unbiased as possible, information to readers, and to be as clear as possible when sharing their

opinions.
I found that Ellis missed the point he was trying to make in most of the book. I did not find many remnants of the theme of friendship within the first few chapters. However I felt the theme of brotherhood in the last two chapters almost consistently. The lack of a unification of theme throughout was discouraging, but the incorporation of many other general themes carried the book to a much more appealing end.
I was not wholly disappointed with the content or tone but was rather let down by the connectivity and unity of the text. I may have little praise for the book, but in truth I found some enjoyment in reading about the people and events that were offered. Overall the book was decent when viewed from my perspective.