Customer Reviews

A Leap in the Dark: The Struggle to Create the American Republic

5 star:		(15)
4 star:		(6)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

I've read a number of works about colonial America, the American Revolution, and the subsequent founding of the United States.
In my opinion, this is by far the best single volume book on the subject of the birth of the United States. Not only do you get a great overview of the events leading up to the American Revolution and the Revolution itself, but the story about the struggle to create the new nation after the 1783 peace settlement is also fascinating. This book is very well written. It will be welcomed reading for both the knowledgable American history enthusiast and for those who for the first time may be seeking to understand the birth of our great nation.

As Ferling explains, "The title of this book was taken from a line in a newspaper essay written in 1776 by a Pennsylvanian who opposed American independence. [A substantial majority of colonials did.] To separate from the mother country, he cautioned, was to make 'a leap in the dark,' to jump into an uncertain future." Ferling goes on to note that, indeed, "Twenty years before independence, it would have been a leap in the dark for the individual colonies to surrender their autonomy and consent to a national confederation of thirteen provinces or for the imperial government in London to countenance such a union." In this volume, Ferling covers a period of time which extends from the Stamp Act of 1765 until Thomas Jefferson's inauguration as president in 1801.

His focus is less on the Revolutionary War itself, more on the immensely complicated, at times confusing political process prior to and following the Declaration of Independence. Those who signed that document fully understood that they were also signing their own death warrant if the subsequent war were lost. It is probably impossible for us today to appreciate the nature and extent of uncertainty for those who resisted British policies, declared independence, went to war against the (then) world's greatest military power, embraced republicanism, ratified the Constitution, enfranchised additional citizens, elected or selected officials who had no prior experience with public service, and cast aside the culture and values of their Anglo-American past. It is this great "darkness" of peril and ambiguity which Ferling enables his reader to explore.

With all due respect to Ferling's comprehensive and compelling erudition, I especially appreciate his writing style with which he brilliantly enlivens the narrative with a mastery of figurative language worthy of a Dickens or Balzac. Without in any sense compromising his primary and secondary sources, he brings to life a society more than 200 years distant from ours and portrays each of its great leaders with style, wit, and grace, to be sure, but also acknowledges their flaws. I have always believed that major historical figures are credible only to the extent that they are presented as human beings rather than as deities. (I think that is especially true of John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and George Washington.) In his final chapter, Ferling's concluding remarks about the election of 1800 also provide what I consider to be an appropriate conclusion to this brief commentary of mine: "Thus, the election of 1800 ushered in a revolution 'in the principles of our government as [profound as] that of 1776 was in its form.' The route to this new day was the road chosen by America's patriots in 1776, for they had believed that the 'blessings...necessary to make us a happy and prosperous people' included 'a wise and frugal government' that rejected tyranny and was based on the popular will. The day now had arrived when the government they wished was being installed. Its promise was considerable. Indeed, said President Jefferson, it was 'the world's best hope.'" And that remains true in 2004, more than 200 years later.

The title of this book may be "A Leap in the Dark" but it provides, in fact, a thoughtful and sensitive illumination of human potentialities, a vision which continues to guide and inform, indeed nourish our quest for enlightenment.

Those who share my high regard for this book are urged to check out Ferling's other works, notably Setting the World Ablaze: Washington, Adams, Jefferson, and the American Revolution, John Adams: A Life, Struggle for a Continent: The Wars of Early America (American History Series), The First of Men: A Life of George Washington, A Wilderness of Miseries: War and Warriors in Early America, and Adams vs. Jefferson: The Tumultuous Election of 1800 (Pivotal Moments in American History).

This book does an excellent job of synthesizing the political beliefs of the many founders of our country, providing context of both time and economic conditions. It is a well-written, engaging book for those of us who got caught up in the new round of biographies -- John Adama and Benjamin Franklin, most notably -- that renewed our love of U.S. history. It puts these figures in context against each other and gives us something to build from as we continue the exploration of our country's roots.

In "A Leap In The Dark", John Ferling turns out a well paced overview of the personalities and political philosophies of the Founding Fathers and their contemporaries.

I was happy to see him start with George Washington and Ben Franklin's younger life, previous to the Revolutionary era. All too often, this formative period is ignored or imagined as unconnected with the beginning days of our Republic.

Only one thing about this book annoyed me, however. Ferling's constant denigration of James Madison revealed his obvious lack of respect for that indispensable Founder. Madison was an incredible man who outlived all the other Founders and was totally integral to every era of our early Republic. From shepherding the birth of the Constitution to becoming an early creator of our two party system, Madison was everywhere. He was even there to disavow what became the Confederate ideas of secession during the 1830s Nullification crisis.

But, Ferling treats Madison like a bumbling idiot. Of course, he is parroting much of the writing of other historians who shares his opinion and since it seems that this entire book is based on secondary research (other scholar's works) and not his own primary research, I guess his dislike of Madison might be expected. After all, Madison had gone through a phase of being unduly discounted by many current historians.

Still, this is a good overview book and should be read by anyone who might be a bit less informed about our Founding era. It most surely will spark interest in further reading.

John Ferling ambitiously sets out in this book to cover an extensive and rich period of American history. As his chapter titles suggest, the period covered spans from 1754 to 1801. I chose this book instead of Robert Middlekauff's Glorious Cause as an introduction to America's founding because it goes beyond the ratification of the Constitution (where Glorious Cause ends) to cover the contest between Federalists and Republicans and the presidencies of Washington and Adams. I wanted a comprehensive survey of the period and Ferling certainly delivered. The book does, however, focus primarily on the political evolution of the period and skims the military history.

So very much happened in the time between 1754 and 1801, that it is impossible to thoroughly address every event and happening. Ferling has condensed the period into merely 500 pages, something that could take well over 2000 pages to thoroughly cover. But he has focused in on the important events and processes for his book to adequately serve as an introduction to the beginnings of the United States. I especially enjoyed, as many of the other reviewers have, the interesting portraits he paints of the most important characters: George Washington, Samuel Adams, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and Alexander Hamilton. These 4- to 8-page descriptions can serve as jump-off points to pursue these characters in more depth in other works.

A Leap in the Dark is an excellent introduction to the American Revolution, the creation of the Constitution, and the first two American presidencies. If, however, you are already familiar with the general course of events and personalities of the period, it would be better to seek out works more narrowly focused.

america needs to get a grip on it's own history to better relate to the rest of the world. from president bush down to the coffee house waitress, everyone needs to read this book. concentrating on the politics and personalities that produced our nation, it demonstrates that despite the flaws and narrow mindedness of many that the product of their work is about as good as people can devise. the founders were far from perfect, nor motives always pure, but they did the best they could with the cards dealt them. from the stamp act in 1765 to the election of jefferson in 1800, where the book ends, is a 35 year period that could have gone many different directions. then another 65 years to settle some of the unresolved issues with the civil war. then another 100 years to guarentee full citizenship to all people. we should remember this as the US seeks change in other countries under very difficult circumsatnces.

Ferling is always a pleasure to read. I also recommend his "Almost A Miracle". This work is a great place to begin for an overview of this period, especially Ferling's account of the events leading up to the Revolution. However, it seems to me that Ferling generalizes too much in the years after the Constitution.
The portrait Ferling paints is one of the non-elite Anti-Federalists vs. the elite Federalists. However, many Anti-Federalists came from the elite whose power within states was threatened by stronger central government. The Clinton-Livingston machine that ran New York and the planter elite that controlled Virginia are examples. This over-simplification is extended into his discussion of Federalists vs. Republicans. For example the small farmers of Shay's rebellion benefitted from the Federal assumption of state debts and became enduring Federalists. Also, many of the "new men" Ferling speaks of, including the self-made Hamilton, were Federalists. The geographical split of the parties is not explained. By 1800, Federalists were strong in New England, but becoming virtually non-existent in the South. It is hard to believe that New England was composed of elitists and left-over Tories, while the South was the home of egalitarians.
I agree with Ferling's statement in his preface that people rarely adopt ideologies that conflict with their personal interests. This was no less true of Anti-federalists and Republicans, though Ferling shows this connection more clearly with their opponents. It is good to remember that the yeomen farmers of Virginia, whom Jefferson praises as the foundation of republicanism, were dependant on and deferential to wealthy planters like Jefferson making it safe for him to embrace them. And the Southern Republicans' resistance to central government dovetailed nicely with the preservation of their peculiar institution, slavery. By working to insure a weak central government that would not interfere in (or tax) property rights in land or slaves, Republicans made sure that the people would not have the means to threaten their privileged status.
I would strongly recommend to anyone who wishes to more fully understand the period from 1788 to 1800 to read Elkins and McKitrick's "The Age of Federalism". It is a thorough, well-written and detailed account that will provide many of the nuances that Ferling leaves out. For an excellent treatment of the underpinnings of 18th century political economy read Drew McCoy's "Elusive Republic". Another good read is Elizabeth Dunn's "Dominion of Memories" which, in a small volume, packs a lot of information on Virginia's planter elite, their obsession with protecting a pastoral utopia that never really existed and the decline of the Old Dominion. The time period for this work is largely 19th century, however it does show the background of Republican thinking and how that ideology played out in Virginia. Joseph Ellis' "American Sphinx" gives a less hagiographic (and fuller) view of Jefferson.

Organized resistance, declaring independence, winning the subsequent war with Great Britain, establishing a national constitutional state, and surviving the minefields of European rivalries - none of these developments were inevitable, or some cases even probable. A Leap in the Dark is an excellent exposition of the efforts, difficulties, conflicting interests, and justifications that were factors in the various colonies moving away from the protection of the mother state and achieving a stable, although somewhat fortunate, political presence. The leading figures (and some lesser figures) of the Revolutionary and post-Revolutionary era are seen having to deal with highly complex and divisive issues.

A lot of ground is covered in this book. The book opens with Benjamin Franklin, as an attendee of a multi-colonial conference in the mid 1750s, proposing that the colonies form a national body primarily for defense against the French and Indians. But the various colonies were far too protective of their quasi-independent standing to seriously pursue unity, not to mention the uneasiness of England in such a proposal. It took a series of incredibly heavy-handed edicts initiated by Parliament and British ministers from 1764-74 to create a sense of unity and common resolve among the colonists that countered their vast geographical and informational separation. But unanimity against the British hardly existed.

A constant theme in the book is the interplay of conservative, elitist, and aristocratic interests versus those more popular and democratic - that is republican. That divide also was part and parcel of the interplay of rural and urban interests; farming, artisanal, and mercantile interests; the interests of northern, middle Atlantic, and southern colonies; etc. It was no small feat to gain sufficient support to realistically declare independence; predictably new problems emerged. The newly emergent United States had to contend with an ineffectual national structure (the Articles of Confederation); inadequate funding of the war effort coupled with rampant inflation; and a series of military blunders - which taken together could have easily lost the war for the US.

The more conservative of the founders recognized the precarious position of the United States in the world community after signing a peace accord with Great Britain and pushed for a constitutional convention. The same differences and perspectives existed as before, but now the conservatives had the upper hand. The author clearly sees the US Constitution as a triumph for conservatives by the creation of a document that clearly was structured to check republican reform. The contentious ratification of the Constitution was a mere harbinger of what was to come in the next twelve years. During the presidencies of Washington and Adams, foreign affairs and the potential for alignment or warfare with Britain or France exacerbated existing differences and led to the more formal formation of the Federalist and Republican political parties. The American Revolution seemed to get off track with the passage of the Alien and Sedition Acts in 1798 at the behest of Hamilton and his supporters. But that zeal to restrict hard-fought freedoms is seemingly turned around as the author closes with the ascendancy of the republican forces, that is, Thomas Jefferson, to the presidency.

No one book can capture the complexity of the American Revolution. By necessity this book excludes at least some of the events and facts of that period. The author is far more concerned with capturing the thinking, contradictions, and the power of the different interests to propel their vision in that era. To cover such a complex thirty-five year period is an ambitious undertaking and is about as successful as could be expected. This book cannot help but add to an understanding of that most important period in our history.

"A Leap in the Dark" is one of the finest one-volume histories of the War of Independence on shelves today!

John Ferling is a truly balanced historian, eschewing the quasi-Marxist tendencies of Howard Zinn's treatment of the Revolution in his "People's History of the United States" while also avoiding the opposite temptation to delve into triumphalism, as seen in "A Patriot's History of the United States."

Ferling is to be resoundingly commended for his fair, even-handed treatment of the Revolution...but that's not to say that the book isn't readable. On the contrary, "A Leap in the Dark" reads like a fascinating novel, with the Founders coming down from their lofty heights to the lower level of us mere mortals. Franklin, Adams, Jefferson; they come alive, with all their genius and failings.

The War of Independence is portrayed as a result of many different issues and the product of many unique motivations--instead of the monothematic belief some historians cling to. Ferling offers a compellingly honest look at the causes of the Revolution, as well as its cost upon the people in America, both pro-independence and loyalist.

In all, "A Leap in the Dark" is a masterpiece of scholarship, fairmindedness, and readability.

This is a wonderfully dense tour of what was facing colonists during the revolutionary era, what the roster of proposed remedies were, and the behind-the-scenes manipulations that underlay the eventual outcomes. As such, the book succeeds not only in evoking the era, but in elucidating the means by which the founding fathers worked and schemed. Often it isn't a very pretty picture. Also, from our perch of self satisfaction at how everything turned out, the author helps us see that nothing was fore-ordained and how differently things might have turned out.

First, we get a view of the crisis of the French-Indian War, which was a watershed event: if the colonies could have united and taken more responsibility (which Britain opposed), we are informed, they might have been better able to deal with England and hence have avoided the need to secede - but as it stood, England felt it had the right to impose taxes to pay for the War. That is a intriguing "what if."

Second, there is the long deterioration of relations with the mother country (as embodied in the Stamp taxes and other measures), which is portrayed as unbelievably ham-handed in its dealings with the colonists. Here you witness the careers of certain loyalsists, e.g. Hutchinson, as well as the emergence of many radicals such as Sam Adams and Thomas Paine. Again, this is fascinating and placed in dense descriptions of context, both political and economic. However, one thing that I felt was lacking here was a full explanation of how the British viewed all of this from their own point of view.

Third, there is the Revolutionary War. While very interesting in the light sketch of military events (with an uncertain Washington), what made this truly useful for me was the analysis of how the fighters used the conflicts to forge political imagery and hence their careers. This in my view gets behind the myths we were brought up with and is extremely valuable. (Washington, for example, is shown as economically motivated because the British would not help him to develop land he held in the West by opening it; he also staged many of his early actions to demonstrate that he didn't want to keep his power, which established his politcal persona and eventually enabled him to grasp it.) The decisive role that France played as an ally in this period is also covered.

Fourth, there is the Articles-of-Confederation period, which was one of hesitation and drift, dangerously weakening the image of the new country internationally and sowing the seeds of its possible destruction. Though we now see this as a transitory period, the author demonstrates that the US could easily have broken into several factions or nations.

Fifth, there is the constitutional fight, in which many of the earlier revolutionaries are eclipsed as the Federalists emerged and overwhelmed their less articulate opponents, who failed to come up with a viable alternative to the Constitution. Again, nothing was certain here.

Finally, there is the early republic, in which parties with distinct ideologies emerged. This was perhaps the most fascinating for me. On one side, there was Hamilton as the leader of the Federalists: they were elitist, pro-British, hoping to create a strong central authority (national bank and a standing army under the command of hte President) as well as enable financial barons to invest in the new institutions and growing urban industries. Washington allowed Hamilton virtually free reign here, which was the apex of his career. THen there were the anti-federalists (Republicans), led by Jefferson and Madison, who fought bitterly against their old allies in the name of the common people and agrarian values; they were pro-French, anto-urban, and suspicious of the new forms of economic organization emerging. While I would have wanted more detail here - Hamiltonianism is never clearly defined - it was enough to stimulate me to look for more elsewhere.

All in all, this left me hungry for more. That is the greatest sign of its success to me: I feel inspired to dig deeper because a new appetite has been stimulated within me. The book is also very well written, but it could have used more illustrations. The portraits of the founding fathers are indeed fascinating and full, though personal details are covered only in so far as they relate directly to the politics of the day. I bet I will read a slew of biographies on them for more detail.

Warmly recommended.