I'm not sure what my overall opinion is.
The author was attrmpting balance by focusing on the two separate groups of angry mobs and founding fathers, but I'm not sure how well he succeeded. Maybe he succeeded as well as could be expected using that framework.
These two categories are too broad and sweeping. The diversity was immense in those early generations, diversity among the populations of different colonies and regions along with diversity among the upper classes. Also there was crossover between the two general categories. The reality of that historical period is just too messy for such neat categories.
The more I read of this book, it became clear how much the author was coming from a particular political viewpoint. Some of his 'analysis' seemed more like personal opinion.
I suspect this explains the overly simplistic framework. Rather than creating a framework to fit the evidence, the evidence was being made to fit the framework. This isn't to say the framework is utterly useless and the author entirely wrong, but I will say it felt intelllectually dissatisfying. The simplistic framework would sometimes lead to simplistic statements which frustrated me. I'd have preferred more nuance and depth.
Beyond the framework issue, I found more tiresome the treatment of slavery. The author's defense of slavery in early America sometimes came across as right-wing apologetics. Slavery was what it was. I don't think it needs to be rationalized with arguments about economics.
Besides, slavery wasn't just about economics. Slavery was about a particular culture and social order. The Deep South slaveholders had a lifestyle of power and privilege that wasn't sustainable without slavery. Even if there had been financial cmpensation, many slaveholders wouldn't have willingly accepted the ending of their entire culture and social order. Power is never given up easily, but obviously the massive profits of southern slavery were a part of the equation.
All in all, it was a mildly interesting read that offers a somewhat worthwhile perspective. It could've been a lot better, but then again it coud've been a lot worse.
For those with a clear ideological bent, this book will appeal mostly to those on the right. The author is more of a fan of a republican constitution than of democratic politics, the basic argument being that the former should ultimately trump the latter... or to put it in the author's language, angry mobs (i.e., mobocracy) are dime a dozen, sometimes beneficial but more often destructive, while wise founding fathers (i.e., constitution) are to be revered for all time... or something like that. The author is clearly not sympathetic to the strongly democratic views of Jeferson and Paine, either considering them naively romantic or dangerously radical. Nonetheless, some on the left probably could gain from reading this book.
This reminds me of another factor that could have simultaneously strengthened the author's argument and given it more nuance. As I was reading this book, I was also reading other related books which brought in alternative perspectives, specifically the context of the Enlightenment during the revolutionary era.
A major difference between the educated elite and the lesser educated masses was their knowledge of Enlightenment thinkers. Many of the founding fathers were leading intellectuals. Also, there is the distinction made by some scholars (e.g., Jonathan Israel) between the radical Enlightenment and the moderate Enlightenment. The author of this book is obviously an adherent of the latter while the likes of Jefferson and Paine were adherents of the former.
One distinguishing feature of the radical Enlightenment was deism. Many founding fathers were deists: Jefferson, Paine, Franklin, Washington, Ethan Allen, etc. This deism was much more common among the educated elite than among the less educated masses. It was also this deism that caused popular support to turn against Paine. The author makes the argument that the angry mob was more radical, but I would point out that being angry at oppression isn't the same thing as ideological radicalism. On whole, the founding fathers were more radical than the angry mob.
The author missed an opportunity by ignoring this aspect. I did some searches in the kindle version of this book. Nowhere in the text does the author mention either the terms 'Enlightenment' or 'deism'. That is a major oversight considering the importance of these to the revolutionary era.
In concusion, I tentatively recommend this book. It isn't a scholarly tome, but neither is it an empty rant. The author presents a rational viewpoint that should be taken seriously.
