Most Helpful Customer Reviews
|
|
13 of 14 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
Short, solid classic history., October 2, 2005
There are hundreds of books written about the early national period in our history. For the reader, the question becomes which are the books worth reading. For example, in the case of Miller's book, why should you read this one instead of Elkins and McKitrick's The Age of Federalism? The latter book is much the newer (1994 compared with Miller's original publication date of 1960), presumably benefits from all the great history that was written in between those two dates and won the Bancroft Prize.
I guess it all depends on what you are looking for. Miller's book was the standard history prior to the publication of Elkins and McKitrick's tome. If you have read about this era of our history you have come across many references to Miller's book. As history goes, it is a little more old fashioned in its interests. Miller's book focuses more closely on the main leaders and events of the period (i.e., it is a little bit more of the great man school of historical writing) and is probably a more standard narrative.
Miller has many felicities that make him still very much worth reading. I feel that I have read fairly deeply in this time period and have read many of the more specialized histories of the period. I didn't find anything in Miller that would need radical revision. What he covers, he covers very succinctly, in telling detail and with little of the partisanship that still attends writings about this period (why people feel we have to make a choice between Hamilton and Madison, for example, I will never know- they are both equally (ir)relevant to our politics). He covers the opening days of the new government, the emergence of Madison as a leader in Congress, of Hamilton as a leader in Washington's cabinet, the economic debates, the agrarian philosophical underpinnings of Jefferson's thought, the fateful struggle between Jefferson and Hamilton which was energized by events like the Whiskey Rebellion, the Alien and Sedition Acts, the Quasi-War with France, Jay's Treaty, the XYZ affair and all that other good stuff.
One of the ways that I evaluate the historians I read on early America is how much of a flavor they give me of the people of the time. For one thing, these were a people who knew how to fling a good insult: President Adams was once described as being "foremost in whatever is detestable" (p. 233 of Miller). Miller gives us plenty of this flavor and of the character of his protagonists. In fact, I have ordered a copy of the writings of Fisher Ames because of the quotes from this book cited by Miller. Miller's discussions of the qualities and accomplishments of Jefferson and Hamilton throughout the book are particularly exemplary.
Miller also points out some aspects of some of the noted controversies that I do not remember having read before. For example, in summing up his history of the Alien and Sedition Acts and the resulting Kentucky and Virginia resolutions, Miller points out, "The Republicans did not question the principle that government must punish libels- they merely demanded that such prosecutions be undertaken by the states rather than by the Federal government...when they came into power, the Republicans transferred these trials from Federal to state courts, where the common law was enforced in all its rigor"(p.237). So much for state's rights being all about the protection of individual freedoms.
I personally feel that what occurred during the 1790's was a struggle for national dominance between two (largely) sectional elites which was complicated by the fact that one elite was the more economically sophisticated, the other was more politically adept, they were both appealing to a population that was rapidly evolving towards more democracy (for white men with a little property) and both had to deal with the wild card that was the politics of Pennsylvania. I think you will find plenty of support for this point of view in any history of the period.
Miller's book does have some flaws. I hate the way he cites his sources. Miller writes a paragraph full of stuff that needs citing and then ends it with a single citation that does not clearly tell us what is the source of what. For example, Miller starts a chapter on Jefferson with the claim that during the Confederation period that Jefferson "wished to see the Federal judiciary made supreme over the state judiciaries in order that it might prevent the states from encroaching upon the authority of the Federal government" (p. 70). I would love to read that "wish" in context but I defy anyone to tell me where to look from Miller's citation.
But this is a geek's complaint (and I stand proudly as that American history geek). For the average reader Miller's book should be seen as just what it is: short, solid, insightful and still very much worth reading.
So here is my answer to the question of Miller vs. Elkins and McKitrick: read both. If you are new to reading about the period, start with Miller. If your interest is piqued, then read some of the great specialty or popular histories of the period. Then cap it off with Elkins and McKitrick. Be sure to keep copies of the Library of America volumes of Washington, Hamilton, Jefferson and Madison near by. Whenever one of their writings is referred to, go read the original. (I am serious. This is the only way to separate what our ancestors actually wrote from the conservative claptrap hagiography that is written about them). And then write to me and explain to me how we progressed from those men thru Jackson and Polk and Lincoln and the Roosevelts to George I and George II.
|
|
|
2 of 2 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
Great Book of The Era, January 29, 2009
John C. Miller's book is a synthesis of the era following the adoption of the constitution. Overall, the thesis and themes of this book are the conflict between union and liberty; Unity in creating a nation of many states into one through the power of a strong central government; liberty in making that government subservient to the rights of the states, as well as the rights of individual men. Miller argues that the intellectual conflict between Federalists and Republicans was necessary for the shaping and maturity of the young republic.
Miller uses many different types of evidence to support his themes and thesis. He uses primary documents such as newspapers, diaries, court documents, correspondences, and early literature. He also uses secondary and tertiary sources to either enhance or support his position of the era.
Predominantly found in this book are the conflicts that arose from our young nation after the "failure" of Articles of Confederation. The emergence of political parties, the role and responsibility of government, foreign affairs, individual liberty, and union all permeate throughout his book. Friends who once fought for America's independence together become fierce opponents, and the ideological divide destroys many friendships that seemed incapable of disunity, such as John Adams and Thomas Jefferson. Furthermore, Miller effectively proves his thesis by describing how and why the Federalists and Republicans believed in their political ideologies.
Overall, this is an excellent book to introduce the student of history to the era that brought about the two party system we still hold today. Miller introduces his biases towards Hamilton, Adams, Jefferson, and Washington. Furthermore, he explains the ideology of the federalists on great detail. Compared to other works of the era, it is not as profound as Joseph J. Elli's Founding Brothers, or THE authoritative (and exhaustive) book by Stanley Elkin, The Federalist Era. Nevertheless, this is an excellent source for college students and non-college students to read about the political nature of Americans. More importantly, this books relevance to today's society is refreshing. The media was biased then as it is now; the personal attacks from candidates towards one another were also not that different than they are today. In short, to understand the origins of political infatuation of Americans, this is the book to read.
|
|
|
2 of 7 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
Good history of the beginnings of political parties., June 20, 2000
This book focuses on the domestic political scene in the United States during the period covered. Foreign affairs, and social affairs are discussed in context of how it affected the development of the Federalist party and the Democratic-Republican party. The book is well written and I found it enjoyable to read. It is well organized although there are a couple of times he discusses the same event in two widely separate parts of the book without a clear transition, so it makes it look like he's going off on to a tangent, then back to his original topic. Good academic history.
|
|
|
Most Recent Customer Reviews
|
by George Dangerfield
by Glyndon Garlock Van Deusen
by Don Edward Fehrenbacher
