American Aurora

by Richard N. Rosenfeld

Federalist accounts of U.S. history are like fluoride in water: no strong taste or odor, something ingested in childhood in order to strengthen the civic faith of America's citizens.

But Valley Forge, "I cannot tell a lie," and all the other federalist propaganda soaked up in civics classes can be countered with an alternate account of our early history, one that maintains that George Washington was a bald-faced liar and a poor military leader, that Benjamin Franklin was the true "father of his country" and fought with crypto-monarchists Alexander Hamilton and John Adams to preserve republican institutions, and that the Constitution drafted in 1787 was a sorry compromise of the revolution's ideals and an inadequate basis for republican government.

All these heresies and more are vigorously argued and defended in Richard N. Rosenfeld's revisionist account of America's revolutionary history, American Aurora. Rosenfeld recounts the controversies surrounding constitutional debates and the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798 through the pages of the Philadelphia Aurora, a radical newspaper of the 1790s.

Packed with original source material, Rosenfeld's history is contentious--even inciteful--and it demonstrates the rich textual history of the United States both in terms of the newspapers he draws from and the story he tells in this expansive narrative history.

Genres: History, Journalism, Nonfiction, American History, Politics, American Revolution

Paperback

First published April 1, 1997

Reviews

[Mark Foskey · Rating 5 out of 5]

American Aurora is a tendentious, excellent book. If you don't pay close attention to history it's possible to imagine that the early days of the US were a collegial time when wise men worked together to create the framework for our modern country. Rosenfeld disabuses us of that notion by taking sides. Jefferson, Madison, and, above all, Franklin are the good guys, Hamilton, Adams, and Washington the opponents to social progress. He tells his story through quotations of primary sources; his own text is largely mortar. I did not come to share his point of view, but I got a vivid perspective on how high feelings ran in those years.

[Christopher Saunders · Rating 5 out of 5]

Richard Rosenfeld's American Aurora: A Democratic-Republican Returns provides an odd, though mostly convincing revisionist look at early America. Written from the perspective of William Duane, second editor of the fiercely Democratic-Republican Philadelphia Aurora, it embraces that paper's viewpoint that George Washington and the Federalists were monarchists-in-waiting, eager to stamp out democracy and turn America in an authoritarian regime. (In fairness, considering Duane and his predecessor, Benjamin Franklin Bache's persecution under the Sedition Act, who can blame them?) The book compiles a variety of primary sources, from letters and memoirs to newspapers and broadsides, functioning almost as an 18th Century oral history in showing how savage and personal 18th Century politics could be. The main complaint is that Rosenfeld insists on wrapping the narrative in a fictionalized framing device, with a narrator (ostensibly Duane) providing wry commentary like a snarkier Gore Vidal hero. Fortunately, these interjections offer only occasional annoyance; surprisingly readable for a book of its type, it provides a wonderfully caustic recounting of America's founding.

[Brian · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book deserves much more attention than it has received. Of course one need not--perhaps should not--take at face value all of the criticism of Adams and the Federalists that comes from the pages of the original Aurora paper. But reading it 200 years later and discerning what is or is not credible is precisely the point of the book. There was a real division at the time about what our nation should be, with very respectable people on both sides. I am no believer in "both sides-ism" as some absolute truth, but this book makes a compelling argument that the Federalists, who more or less prevailed, were not without sin. Or maybe the point is how suppression of the press is essential to political success. Either way, it tells the story from the perspective of the targets of the Alien and Sedition Acts, one of the most anti-free speech events in the country's history. For that reason alone it's a story that should be told, and forces you to think how hard is must be to take freedom of the press seriously when your country is a fledgling.

[Becky · Rating 3 out of 5]

I really never realized before reading this book how tenuous our independence was early on. It is a miracle we are still a nation! Very lengthy, but I found it interesting enough to hold my attention......and raising my blood pressure..... as to some of the goings on.

Take into consideration that this was only one view of the politics going on.....the Federalists were diametrically opposed to the feelings express here. BUT, it is an apt portrayal of what was daily life in the infancy of our United States....however slanted it may be.

[Robert Muller · Rating 1 out of 5]

I found this book incredibly annoying in the first 50 pages. If you want to read 1000 pages of Fox News, this is your book. While the author quotes original sources extensively, he does so entirely to support the opinion of his "character", the point-of-view from which the book is written--the editor of the Aurora, which most historians dismiss as an early version of Breitbart or Alex Jones. In particular, the author falls into three traps: not providing the full story/context, citing hearsay at the third or fourth level (however original, hearsay is hearsay, not facts), and stating opinions strongly that are not supported by underlying facts. Oh, and by the way, just because its published and over 200 years old doesn't make it true.

Any time you get a history that uses really "innovative" techniques to promote a radical vision of some historical reality, you should pay attention to the details rather than just believing they know the "real" story, particularly if they turn out to be pretty much alone in their approach. I again refer you to Fox News and Breitbart for comparison.

So, sorry, I will continue to read real histories of the period and will continue to believe most of what they say, and I will rely on the primary materials, most of which are now available online, not on "scurrilous and defamatory" papers like the Aurora and its supporters.

[Tadd Rosenfeld · Rating 5 out of 5]

A+

[Marcella · Rating 3 out of 5]

The more things change, the more they stay the same. Censoring news in this country by the federal government is nothing new. It makes you question the so called ideals our country was allegedly founded on. Basically its the story of two Philadelphia newspaper editors Presidents Washington and Adams attempted to jail for sedition (author's words as I recall them when I saw him discuss the book on CSPAN). It's an eye opening perspective to our country's history not discussed in grade school history lessons.

[Mark · Rating 4 out of 5]

The parallels to the Bush Administration, Fox News, and Limbaugh are absolutely astonishing. The book also offers some reassurance about the resiliance of resistance.

[Ian · Rating 1 out of 5]

No, not fun. Fine, it was an interesting approach to telling history, but the story wasn't terribly exciting.

[Georg1991 · Rating 2 out of 5]

I could not get through this book, and I usually like reading tomes. It was written in old colonial English I just had to keep looking up definitions to make sure I understood the sentences.

[Chad Lamb · Rating 3 out of 5]

Interesting look at how journalism wasn't so deceptive in its biases during the early years of our nation's history.