Fears of a Setting Sun: The Disillusionment of America's Founders

by Dennis C. Rasmussen

The surprising story of how George Washington, Alexander Hamilton, John Adams, and Thomas Jefferson came to despair for the future of the nation they had createdAmericans seldom deify their Founding Fathers any longer, but they do still tend to venerate the Constitution and the republican government that the founders created. Strikingly, the founders themselves were far less confident in what they had wrought, particularly by the end of their lives. In fact, most of them—including George Washington, Alexander Hamilton, John Adams, and Thomas Jefferson—came to deem America’s constitutional experiment an utter failure that was unlikely to last beyond their own generation. Fears of a Setting Sun is the first book to tell the fascinating and too-little-known story of the founders’ disillusionment.As Dennis Rasmussen shows, the founders’ pessimism had a variety of Washington lost his faith in America’s political system above all because of the rise of partisanship, Hamilton because he felt that the federal government was too weak, Adams because he believed that the people lacked civic virtue, and Jefferson because of sectional divisions laid bare by the spread of slavery. The one major founder who retained his faith in America’s constitutional order to the end was James Madison, and the book also explores why he remained relatively optimistic when so many of his compatriots did not. As much as Americans today may worry about their country’s future, Rasmussen reveals, the founders faced even graver problems and harbored even deeper misgivings.A vividly written account of a chapter of American history that has received too little attention, Fears of a Setting Sun will change the way that you look at the American founding, the Constitution, and indeed the United States itself.

Genres: History, Politics, Nonfiction, American History, Audiobook, Biography, American Revolution

277 pages, Kindle Edition

First published March 2, 2021

About the author

Dennis C. Rasmussen is a political theorist whose research focuses on the Enlightenment, the American founding, and the virtues and shortcomings of liberal democracy and market capitalism. He received his Ph.D. from Duke University in 2005 and his B.A. from Michigan State University’s James Madison College in 2000, and he has also held positions at Tufts University, the University of Houston, Brown University, and Bowdoin College

Reviews

[William Bahr · Rating 5 out of 5]

Thumps Up on the Founders' Downers!

Fears of a Setting Sun” is way more than a half-full look at some half-empty, despairing Founders' glasses. Speaking of glasses, I see the book focusing on information usually hidden to those having read earlier Founding histories with rose-colored glasses. For this, the author uses his lens to tease out facts and suppositions that highlight the downsides — the Founders’ disappointments and fears.

I’ll not summarize the book in this review, as the publisher offers an excellent description of the book’s details in its Amazon overview. More is to be found in the “Look inside” for the hardcover version (Kindle version is not available as of this review). However, one of the important things not mentioned in the overview is a chapter devoted to ten other Founders beyond the main five (Washington, Hamilton, Adams, Jefferson, and Madison), viz: Samuel Adams, Gerry, Henry, Jay, Marshall, Mason, Monroe, Gouverneur Morris, Paine, and Rush. Note: Benjamin Franklin was very likely omitted as he died in 1790, just a year after the new American government went into effect and too early to develop any true regrets beyond his earlier statement and measured support around the time of the Constitution's signing: "Thus I consent to this Constitution because I expect no better and because I am not sure that it is not the best."

In general, the author offers fascinating speculation about the reasons why the Founders would have been disappointed in their present and future view of the Founding’s results. One can find much in the author’s deep dive into letters and documents reflecting Founders’ complaints. The author also lends his investigative talents into both logical induction and deduction of what probably was going on in a Founder’s mind, given the time’s events.

What one learns from reading the book is that, in the eyes of the Founders, American Exceptionalism was highly suspect, especially after they confronted difficult problem after problem after problem. What they had needed to do was to flesh out the skeleton structure of their new government. Unfortunately, they soon realized each Founder had different directions in which they wanted their new government to go. This led to conflict among themselves and others, much like what happened to other countries.

By the end of their lives, except for Madison, they were disappointed but not necessarily dissatisfied with the results of their efforts. They were indeed better off than before the Revolution, but not as much as they had expected to be with their different ideals, goals, plans, and strategies. As well, for most, they expected the future to be bleak for future generations.

The book offered me many new insights. Yes, Freneau was a Department of State translator working for Jefferson and Madison on the anti-Federalist National Gazette, but Hamilton was helping to fund Fenno’s anti-Republican “Gazette” by giving him Treasury printing business. As well, the author suspects Hamilton was not so much worried about states’ rights, as he grew up in the West Indies and lacked a strong state loyalty, in addition to his spending time in the Continental Army where state ties were not always important. Also, while important to all the Founders, character and virtue were especially important to Washington and Adams. The author goes into great depth here regarding Adams’ disappointment with the nation’s general lack of character. Especially interesting is the author’s cataloging the many likely reasons Madison seems much less pessimistic than the others as far as America’s future.

By the end of the book, one realizes that if the Founders had it so bad and yet despairing, survived to leave a more or less glowing legacy, then maybe we can be glad America still has a future after all!

Bottom-line, I found the book to be very well researched and well written. Highly recommended!

Of possible interest: George Washington's Liberty Key: Mount Vernon's Bastille Key - the Mystery and Magic of Its Body, Mind, and Soul “Character is Key for Liberty!” and
Strategy Pure and Simple: Essential Moves for Winning in Competition and Cooperation

[Aloysius · Rating 4 out of 5]

Partisanship. Corruption. Weak government. Sectional division. Modern day Americans worry about these and other issues now, but these concerns were alive and well during the founding generation. Contrary to popular belief, the Founding Fathers were men of flesh, not marble, and at various times over the course of the early republic showed signs of apprehension and dissolution. The fears of four men in particular are showed here: George Washington, Alexander Hamilton, John Adams, and Thomas Jefferson. I think reading this book can help provide a sense of proportion. If the United States could survive the tumultuous days of the late 18th and early 19th century, then it can surely deal with the challenges of the early 21st.

[Greg · Rating 5 out of 5]

While I am not sure that it is reassuring to us in our own democracy-endangered times, it is enlightening to learn of how many of those we consider the Founders had serious reservations as they aged about the Republic to which they had given form. After all, if these good and wise men had doubts, then perhaps our own concerns about the survival of our democratic republic are neither as original – or as ill-fated – as we have feared.
Perhaps…. On the question, I am afraid that the “proof” is still in the unfinished “pudding.”

Oh, and a partial caveat: While the more one already knows about American history before one cracks open this book, the better – as such a person will already be aware of some of the most contentious issues facing both the crafters of the Constitution as well as those on both sides of the issue who argued vigorously in the state conventions called specifically to address whether or not the proposed Constitution should be adopted – it is not strictly necessary. Rasmussen is such an engaging and capable writer that likely even a total neophyte (although this may be stretching it a tad) will likely learn the essentials of why they came to have the concerns they did.

Sadly, most Americans are not all that well-versed in their own history or, for that matter, history of any kind, thanks to the erosion of our country’s commitment to grounding our young people in an appreciation for understanding both our own history and valuing the vital role each citizen must play in democratic republics. In short, we have failed to heed the Founder’s warning that each generation must have a thorough grounding in what we would call civics; that is, in knowing not only how our governmental structures are to function but also our duties as citizens in using and preserving those structures.

Rasmussen introduces his subject matter thusly: It may come as “something of a surprise [for many] to learn that the founders themselves were, particularly by the end of their lives, far less confident in the merits of the political system that they had devised, and that many of them in fact deemed it an utter failure that was unlikely to last beyond their own generation…. those of them who lived on into the early decades of the nineteenth century expressed anxiety over what they had wrought. Although they tried to put as good a face as they could on what had happened, they were bewildered, uneasy, and in many cases deeply disillusioned. Indeed, a pervasive pessimism, a fear that their revolutionary experiment in republicanism was not working out as they had expected, runs through the later writings of the founding fathers. (Pp. 3-4)

“This book focuses principally on four of the preeminent figures of the period: George Washington, Alexander Hamilton, John Adams, and Thomas Jefferson. These four lost their faith in the American experiment at different times and for different reasons, and each has his own unique story….
“…most of the other leading founders…fell in the same camp. The most notable founder who did not come to despair for his country…was the one who outlived them all, James Madison. Madison did harbor some real worries from time to time…but on the whole he remained sanguine about the nation and its politics all the way until his death in 1836.” (P. 4)

Especially for those who have little grounding in American history, it may be more than a little surprising and unsettling to discover in these pages just how basic were many of the disagreements among the Founders, indeed, how frankly irresolvable some of them were.
One very important “for instance”: It appears popular among many on what is vaguely understood to be “the Left” today to denounce the Founders not only because they are dead white males but also because “they don’t speak for me!” In other words, because they did not prohibit slavery, expand the franchise to include women, or resolve a number of other important issues “we modern liberated folks have no reason to listen to anything they said or to honor anything they stood for!”
Let me make my position on this point perfectly clear: Such “reasoning” is pure nonsense!

And, by the way, such absolutist positions are hardly reserved to a few wingnuts on the Left, as anyone familiar with some of the stuff coming from the unhinged on the far Right should understand.

Oh, how we yearn to be a “purified people,” wiser than our ignorant ancestors, surer in our beliefs and more fervent in implementing them!
Ahem! To all the adults in the room who have made more than one significant mistake in their lives: There have never been such a people or such a time!

So, with fair warning to all who feel comfortable in passing judgment on others, let me proceed.

The Founders were among the truly best and wisest of their generation. They were men (and yes, Virginia, I acknowledge that they were all men) of extraordinary, proven talent, admired widely in their respective communities, and very learned in history and political science. By the time they came to wrestle with building the Constitution, their generation had weathered the effective ending of the French Empire in the New World (as a result of the decades-long struggle that was resolved, at least as much as any such contest can be resolved, in the Peace Treaty of 1763, an event that our history books call the French and Indian War), the awful slide from enjoying an expected long-enduring British era of peace that followed 1763 only to be quickly caught up in escalating tensions between Great Britain and themselves over what they perceived to be the violation of their rights as Englishmen, through the horrific bloodshed of the brutal civil war that followed (what we call our “Revolution”), to the establishment of state and the initial federal governments, and finally to crafting a Constitution designed to walk the tightrope between addressing the defects of that first federal government – that established under the Articles of Confederation – and nonetheless respecting the very tender sensibilities of thirteen proud and now independent states!
Many today are fond of calling the generation that lived through the Great Depression and the Second World War of the 20th century the Greatest Generation. Well, it is more accurate I think to see them as the greatest of our time, for I do not know of another that went through as much turmoil and the conventional idea of blood, sweat, and tears than did the Founders’ generation!

Nonetheless, for all that they shared the same shaping experiences, they – just like us – were all individuals, too, with their own tug of personal responsibilities warring with their perceived obligations to the “greater good” and doing their best to bring their own varied principles and understanding of what was right and proper to bear in designing governments that they hoped would last for the ages, but which – knowing too well of the fate of all other republics before their own – feared might not last even decades.

Yes, they failed to end slavery and that remains an evil stain upon them and, as we well know, one that continues to divide us today! However, the simple truth is that the choice they faced in the Constitutional Convention was that unless they left the issue alone they would not receive the votes of the Southern States and, had that happened, they could have passed nothing in terms of a governmental compact!
It is also true that while most of the Founders disliked slavery – and fervently hoped that it would wither away (something, incidentally, that actually seemed possible in the closing decades of the 18th century – most of them were also racists, even the best of them believing that Black people were “inferior” to themselves. This is an ugly truth for which I offer no defense. It is simply a fact.

Many of us today have trouble getting beyond this point as it is “simple”: since they were racists – and many of them held slaves themselves! – then nothing else they said or believed should be honored, either. Primal corruption, if you will.
This argument is a lot like the theme of Hawthorne’s A Scarlet Letter – some things are simply so vile that nothing else a person is or does can overshadow it! We continue to have variations of our own scarlet letters down to this day.
The problem with this line of reasoning is not that there are some things that people do or so that are not effectively beyond the pale – for there certainly are; however, it is a very basic ethical and moral question as to whether the totality of any human being can be irretrievably “branded” for an element of their being! Depending upon your own feelings about this point one heck of a lot of what the Founders wrestled with – and disagreed upon – will violate your sensitive nature.

As you read this most engaging book you will probably be surprised at how many of the issues that divided the Founders still upset and divide us today!
• The role of the judiciary, especially that of the Supreme Court, and particularly its assumed power to rule an act of Congress unconstitutional
• Where the true locus of authority and direction should and does lie: in the executive or legislative branch?
• How to prevent the president – and in our time, by extension the entire executive branch – from exceeding its authority?
• Exactly how much – indeed, how far – can or should we trust majority rule?
• Relatedly, exactly what is “majority rule”? Who is included in this “majority”? Who is excluded because they have no “right” to be included?
• When does a “little” rebellion or regional resistance become dangerous? And who determines this?
• How much power should the states have vis-à-vis the federal government? Who is in charge of weighing the scales?

And, frankly, many more.

What most disturbed the Founders are the very things that still upset and confuse us:
 That most people, most of the time, display alarmingly little civic virtue – that is, remembering to place the needs of the entire people above their own!
 That most people are remarkably ignorant of – and take little real effort to prepare for participating in – elections!
 That partisanship – belonging to and identifying with segments of the whole – consistently overrides pursuing the common and national “good”!
 That legitimate differences of opinion too quickly assume all or nothing guises, making understanding other points of view difficult and rendering compromise impossible!
 That rather than the “best and brightest” running for office we often get the ideological dregs, men and women whose deepest convictions seem rooted in the wish to rile up their “base” and denigrate all who disagree with them. [The election of 1800 was a truly vile one.]

At this point, you might be forgiven for thinking, Good Lord! Then where is there hope
Well, for one thing, none of these problems is “new.” And, while we have paid often terribly high costs in the past because of them – most notably, the Civil War of the 1860s – the Republic is still here, despite the fact that time and again many wise and virtuous people thought that its days were truly numbered. (Of course, the caveat that past success guarantees nothing about the future is worth keeping in mind, too.)
But, also, because our most successful periods in our history have been when citizens have reached beyond the simplistic, “obvious” boundaries demarking positions in order to craft usually uncomfortable, often unsatisfying, but workable middle road compromises – compromises not intended to be forever fixes but, rather, designed to get us through now.
If we can but realize that our charge as citizens of a democratic republic is not to craft the “celestial city here and now” but, rather, to fix what is broken, patch up where needed, and do our best to make tomorrow just a tad better than today, then the task is immensely more workable and possible.

Back to Rasmussen:
“America’s constitutional order has both virtues and shortcomings, and it always has. Our ultimate evaluation of that order will inevitably rest in large part on our basis for comparison. If we compare the United States to an idealized vision of what we believe democracy could be or should be, as the founders frequently did, then we are bound to be disappointed, as most of them were. But if, like Madison, we temper our expectations and remind ourselves that the illiberal and undemocratic alternatives have proven far worse, then we will be more inclined to count our blessings.
“Moreover, the realization that many of our current political ills were also present at the founding of the nation may render us less apt to be surprised by these problems, or to assume that they will disappear any time soon. Too frequently we seem to expect that with the right tweak to our political system – eliminating the electoral college, ending the filibuster in the Senate, establishing fixed term limits for Supreme Court justices, reforming campaign finance laws, setting up independent redistricting commissions, instituting top-two primaries or ranked-choice voting, promoting civic education – we might manage to fix all that ails us. While such reforms might help at the margins, the fact that many of today’s problems have been with the nation since its inception suggests that they may be more systemic in nature than we often realize – but also that they are less likely to ultimately doom the republic than we often fear.”

In essence: We must be the “adults in the room.” Like the Founders and every generation before us, we are charged not with solving everything, but with making things better.

We are able to do this, but are we still willing?

[Riq Hoelle · Rating 5 out of 5]

The idea of the book is that all of the founders felt, at the ends of their lives, very discouraged about the constitution and the way the country was going, save Madison.

Although this is a different cut at things, early on there doesn't seem to be any new material. All the familiar quotes and stories are trotted out once again. In fact it's easy to predict exactly which quotes are going to be cited. From Franklin there's the "rising sun" and "a republic, if you can keep it." From Jefferson there's the "a fire bell in the night". And so on. They're all there. In 2021 the amount of boilerplate should have been reduced considerably. These may be the problems that crop up when a historian comes in to a well-trod field from the outside.

Another issue is that sometimes topics are explained with enough nuance. For example, the description of Washington's cabinet meetings makes it sound like they occurred every single day that the government was in session. But that wasn't the case. They were called primarily when Washington had some big decision to make and in fact they became rare in the second half of his second term.

But after the introductions and chapters on Washington and Hamilton, it picks up considerably with Adams, Jefferson, Madison and other founders. In particular, what they thought, wrote and said in their retirement years has been little treated elsewhere in any systematic fashion.

Washington's despair about the constitution was about the fact that it led to political parties. On that he was just wrong, not the constitution. He just was not well enough studied in the nature of politics.

Hamilton's despair was that the federal government did not have enough power. He would probably be a lot happier with the way things are now.

Jefferson's main despair was that the federal government would be used to force an end to slavery, creating a civil war. Well, he was right, but the Union survived somehow anyway. He also wanted a lot more decentralization.

Adams despaired, primarily, that good government in the end must depend on a certain level of civic virtue and he saw the want of it everywhere he looked. As a remedy he sought to make the chief executive sound more impressive using exalted titles. Most books do not bother to explain this reasoning by the way, leaving readers to guess Adams had gone slightly round the bend. This Adams section is probably the best in the book, expounding on his reaction to the constitution – he wanted a stronger executive not subject to veto override and a weaker senate which did not have oversight of appointments – and early governance – like Jefferson he disliked much of Hamilton's financial program.

[Kyle · Rating 5 out of 5]

A fascinating analysis on a few of the founders’ thoughts on the evolution of the American government over the course of their lives and how many became disillusioned by its future prospects; given the examination was primarily driven by the letters the founders wrote, the book also showed that the founders were prone to being hypocritical, reactionary, and overly pessimistic, which cuts against the hagiographic light that they are somewhat often seen in

[Shrike58 · Rating 4 out of 5]

Right at the start of this book, the author admits that he is a cheerful consumer of exemplary biography of the American "Founding Fathers," and had long noticed that, over time, these men seemed to wind up being sour about the whole experiment. While one might observe that Washington, Hamilton, Jefferson, and John Adams never accounted for social and economic change in their vision, there was a shared reality that all the signers had a different vision of how this system was supposed to work, and that they were all setting themselves up for disappointment. Not to mention that the Body Politic was not necessarily impressed with the founders' self-image as being disinterested agents for the common good, and had their own sense of what their interests were. All that said, what this book works best as is a survey of the "Federalist" period in the Early Republic, and I found it a useful review.

As for the cover of this book featuring the "sun in splendor" motif that adorned George Washington's chair at the Constitutional Congress, Ben Franklin, at the time, speculated on whether it was a rising or a setting sun in regards to the hopes of the participants. Rasmussen suggests that it's a beckoning sun, drawing us to the horizon of perfecting the Great American Experiment.

[Alisha · Rating 5 out of 5]

Listened via audiobook (which is the ideal way for me to consume nonfiction I’ve discovered). It’s so fascinating to learn that the founders were like “ehhhh it’s fine I guess???” About the constitution, when my education made it seem like it was this brilliant document that was lovingly crafted by the brightest minds of the time. Learning that the founders were almost immediately like “UH OH IDK ABOUT THIS ONE GUYS” almost immediately as the country began running… I don’t understand why that isn’t the narrative taught in high school or even college (in my experience). The uncertainty makes them more human and interesting to learn about, rather than the deification I experienced in my education.

[Gerry Connolly · Rating 5 out of 5]

In Fears of a Setting Sun Dennis Rasmussen details the sometimes dyspeptic views of America’s founders about the future of the nation they birthed. Jefferson, Adams, Washington and Hamilton almost despaired about America’s course during their respective retirements. Only Madison remained steadfast in his faith that the union would hold and survive its many vicissitudes. Madison’s faith remained unflinching as his mentor, Jefferson, descended into a state’s rights polemicist. Instructive for today’s turmoil and roiling partisanship.

[Grant · Rating 4 out of 5]

An interesting look at an under-reported part of American history: namely, how many of the founders felt that the American experiment had failed by the end of their lives. The last chapter was also the best, as it recounted the (dizzying) amount of pull quotes from every founder you can name urging future generations not to look on them or their work as unable to be improved on. Something we should all consider in this era of fetishizing the 1776 generation.

[Karen Adkins · Rating 4 out of 5]

Rasmussen, a political science professor, explores the interesting fact that a large number of the founders of the US system of government were deeply skeptical about its viability by the end of their lives. He's got the receipts on over a dozen of them, but focuses the book on the four biggest names (Washington, Adams, Hamilton, and Jefferson), as well as the biggest counterexample (Madison). He's done voluminous research here, and substantiates this surprising claim quite persuasively. He makes extensive use of private letters in making the case, and skeptics should remember that in the 18th and 19th century, prolific epistolarists with public images were absolutely writing with the knowledge that their 'private' letters would be part of a public image post-death. (Indeed, as Joanne Freeman reminds us, private letters were often not truly private even as they were written--they were often written to be circulated in use of political debates.) His purpose in this book I think is dual: first, obviously, to tell this underexplored history, but second to reflect about what we can learn from this today. His main takeaway is that the four founders who were skeptical (sometimes apolcalyptically so) about the nation's prospects were so in part because their initial idealism and motives were so high. Adams, for instance, thought that a virtuous citizenry was crucial to the survival of a republican form of government (so much for that, says the contemporary reader!). In other words, their aims were so sky-high that even partial compromises and limitations seemed catastrophic. By contrast, Madison started out more pragmatic about his aims and more realistic about humans' capacities, so he could more easily roll with the governmental punches. (This reading illuminates why Madison was always my favorite of the Federalist Papers authors, even though he didn't get a musical.) These are good lessons for today's followers of politics, who tend in my view to be absolutist in ways that can be destructive and cynicism-provoking. Better to get things done, even if they're not the perfect things. And the book is well-written, and contains enough relevant juicy gossip (i.e. details about the various rivalries between the founders, including their snark about one another's talents and weaknesses), to make them come alive in the pages, and make this a fast and fun read, as well as worthwhile.

So what keeps my review only 4 instead of 5 stars? In large part because of the way in which this book is still too uncritical of the Founders, particularly with respect to slavery. Slavery haunts this book (as it does this country), but the topic is generally worked into the margins (only substantively treated in one of the chapters on Jefferson, which minimizes how thoroughly slavery was a part of our economy and a source behind so many of these compromises). In particular, mostly limiting the slavery discussion to Jefferson ends up letting the other Founders off the hook. After all, Washington and Madison were both slaveholders (and as recent history demonstrates [Never Caught], Washington was *quite assiduous* about pursuing his escaped slaves after the Fugitive Slave Act). And Adams and Hamilton, while expressing reservations about slavery, didn't do any meaningful advocacy or politicking to eliminate it. White founders' perspectives are simply too central in a book about where the expansion of liberty succeeded and where it failed (particularly when the expansion of liberty for non-property owning white people occurred at the expense of enslaved black people, indigenous people, and women). There were simply too many statements like this one, after a comment about how the War of 1812 was a tactical draw between the US and Britain: "(For the native peoples in the western territories, it was an unmitigated disaster.") Statements like these, and again there were plenty, serve to simultaneously draw attention to the tensions in this discussion of the expansion of liberty and the possibility of civic virtue, and to highlight what's being left out of this discussion. I realize it is probably a lot to ask of a relatively brief book written for a hybrid trade/scholarly group, but I just think these issues needed to be worked in a bit more centrally. The discussion in the epilogue about slavery ended up feeling tacked-on. The book and the story it tells are still clearly worth reading. I just think pairing them with Stovall's *White Liberty* would be useful for many readers.

[Hunter · Rating 3 out of 5]

One of those "quasi-academic" popular histories that has little analytic value. Enjoyable and better than most, but nothing that will really get the gears turning if you already are familiar with the subject matter beyond the Schoolhouse Rock hagiography level. Adams and Jefferson emerge as the most sympathetic of the figures profiled. Adams' curmudgeonly wit is particularly endearing, as he already foresees the absurd idolization that would be bestowed upon his generation:
"The Essence of the whole will be that Dr Franklins electrical Rod, Smote the Earth and out Sprung General Washington. That Franklin electrifed him with his Rod—and thence forward these two conducted all the Policy Negotiations Legislation and War."

[Daniel Hoffman · Rating 5 out of 5]

America's founding fathers are always associated first, obviously, with America's founding. The break with Britain in 1776 and the Constitutional Convention of 1787 are what they are most famous for. But some of them lived decades beyond that, long enough to see the fruit of their labor and the shape it was taking. They weren't necessarily happy with it. This book focuses on what the founders thought about the nation they created as it progressed past its infancy and into its childhood.

George Washington almost despaired over the development of political parties and factions. Hamilton thought the lack of centralization and a sufficiently powerful presidential office would cripple America's ability to grow. John Adam's thought the character of the people—the general lack of civic virtue—meant that the form of government he and his coworkers had devised could never be maintained. Thomas Jefferson, Hamilton's reverse image in many ways, thought the slipping away of the power and independence of the states would spell disaster. James Madison, almost alone of the Founders, seemed to maintain some optimism about the nation's future. He was the exception that proves the rule, and he definitely had his own misgivings in any case.

Fascinating perspective on the early history of the United States; not a long read, and very well and clearly written.

From the Epilogue:

"Today Americans revere the Constitution almost to a person—despite having, in the great majority of cases, never actually read it. Its provisions are frequently accorded the kind of reflexive deference that is usually reserved for sacred texts, and outright criticism of the document is generally regarded as bordering on sacrilege. As we have seen, this is not at all how the founders themselves viewed the nation’s fundamental charter—not in 1787, and certainly not (with the partial exception of Madison) at the end of their lives. On the contrary, they almost all considered it to be deeply flawed at the outset, and for most of them the Constitution’s weaknesses—and the failings of the government and political culture that it produced—only became more glaring over time."

[Adam · Rating 4 out of 5]

“We would also do well to recall the founders' late-life despair about America's constitutional order when we are tempted, as we so often are, to assume that they had all the answers or that their intent must be obeyed in all things. Today Americans revere the Constitution almost to a person— despite having, in the great majority of cases, never actually read it. Its provisions are frequently accorded the kind of reflexive deference that is usually reserved for sacred texts, and outright criticism of the document is generally regarded as bordering on sacrilege.”

In Fears of a Setting Sun, Rasmussen delivers a balanced account of the unease that afflicted the heavy hitters of America’s founding. The book acts as a reminder that the founders were flawed, oft-anxious men, yet provides a cautiously optimistic outlook for the republic’s time-tested ability to weather dark ages. It is wise to remember that we are flawed, just as the founders were, the constitution is not a self-executing document, and we only have a republic so long as we can keep it.

[Derek Baker · Rating 5 out of 5]

This was really good! It very quickly covers the disillusionment of Washington, Adams, Hamilton, and Jefferson and contrasts them with Madison, who died still optimistic about the fate of the country/Constitution. I have little quibbles, but the book covers so much ground and is so entertaining that I can forgive them.

[Therden · Rating 4 out of 5]

A good beach read for those interested in how a selection of the founding fathers viewed their creation.

[Suzi Sullivan · Rating 5 out of 5]

I loved this book and quick and insightful thoughts on several of America’s founders. I particularly enjoyed the epilogue’s hope and perspective. This was a great book to start the new year!

[Shawn · Rating 5 out of 5]

A fantastic account of the realities of the founding of the US. A portrait of the men who came together to try and create a more perfect union and their own thoughts of how their own person attitudes changed as partisan strife and political factions tore at their idea of that union. A realistic story of the founders without the rose colored glasses they are usual seen through.

[Chris · Rating 4 out of 5]

Anyone worried and pessimistic about the future of America in the wake of the Trump presidency might be surprised and comforted to learn that the founders of the nation had similar doubts about the future in their own time. Many came to feel as if they might have failed and so they might live to see the sun go down on their republican dream.

Washington, Adams, Hamilton, and Jefferson all became doubtful about the ability of the republic to endure. Washington worried that the government was beset by parties and the evil of partisanship. Adams, who had long felt that only a virtuous people could successfully live under a republican form of government, began to doubt that Americans had the requisite virtue. Hamilton feared that, although better than the Articles of Confederation, the new constitution left too much power with individual states and gave too little authority to the federal government and especially to the executive branch. Jefferson, at an opposite pole from Hamilton, feared the encroachment of centralized power on liberty. He worried that the federalists longed to return the United States to a monarchy, while the federalists worried that the staunch republicans, Madison and Jefferson, would make common cause with the French against their own national interests. In other words, it was a gloomy prognosis all around. The list of founders who lost faith in what they had founded was surprisingly long.

There are interesting discussions about all of the founders, but I found the discussion of Jefferson and slavery to especially interesting. Jefferson early on claimed the practice of slavery was an evil that must some day end, and yet he was to continue to run his plantation with hundreds of slaves all of his life, becoming less and less vocal about the evils of slavery as time went on. In the way that Rasmussen discusses Jefferson's correspondence and views on slavery, we can see how much his advocacy for states' rights and his fight against the federalists concentration of power in the federal government at a time that sentiment in the North was shifting against slavery was suspiciously well-aligned with his interests as a Southern plantation owner who depended on slave labor for his economic position and prestige. Jefferson could resort to some strange pretzel logic. Case in point, in supporting the Missouri Compromise, he argued that the best way to bring the eventual abolition of slavery was to allow Missouri to join the Union as a slave state. As if spreading slavery around would dilute it in some way.

Madison alone remained positive about the nation's future. Madison was perhaps less idealistic than the others, sharing neither Adam's surprise at Americans' lack of civic virtue nor Jefferson's overblown fears about the federalists and a return to monarchy. Madison seems to have had faith in the blueprint they had used to create the new government, that the checks and balances would protect the nation from both overreach by the federal government and from the populism and corruption of the people due to insufficient civic virtue among the people. And of course the union did hold together for the next 200 years or so.

This book covers already well-tracked snow in looking to the lives of the nation’s founders, but its original focus on the pessimism with which the founders viewed the nation's immediate future offers an interesting perspective in our time of hyper-partisanship, fake news, the election of a rather grotesque figure to be president, and all the rest. We are not alone in our pessimism. It has been there since the start of the nation. Maybe we can take heart in knowing that even the founders shared that pessimism and fear. Perhaps our fears and worries will prove no more prophetic than theirs.

[Sam Seitz · Rating 5 out of 5]

With many contemporary commentators expressing grave concern about the sustainability of American democracy, Rasmussen’s newest book is a timely work. Examining Washington, Hamilton, Jefferson, Adams, Madison, and several of the less well known founders’ views on the sustainability of the nascent republic, Fears of a Setting Sun reveals that precious few of these men viewed the future of the United States with much optimism. Washington fretted over the emergence of parties and partisanship, Adams doubted the people of the country possessed the requisite virtue required for democracy to function, Hamilton despaired that the state was far too weak to grow and prosper, while Jefferson felt that slavery threatened to tear the country asunder. Indeed, of the major founders covered in the book, only Madison retained his faith in the Constitution and the country.

As with all of Rasmussen’s books, this work is exceptionally well-written, interesting throughout, and full of interesting observations and quotes. The book is also valuable for its ability to speak both to historical debates and contemporary fears. Rather than the rose-tinted view of America’s founding that tends to characterize the popular depiction of American history within the United States, Fears of a Setting Sun reveals just how uncertain America’s founders were about their political project. What is particularly striking is the presence of such hearty perennials as partisanship, low state capacity, and sectional differences in the debates and fears of the era - all concerns that continue to manifest in contemporary political discourse. The fact that these issues have existed since the beginning of the American democratic experiment offer some reason for cautious optimism. We’ve made it this far, after all. But at the same time it’s hard to escape the conclusion that the pessimistic founders were more than a tad justified in their fears: the country didn’t even last a century before collapsing into bloody civil war.

But beyond its oblique commentary on modern America’s ability to cope with the many challenges of democratic governance, the book is also useful in its correction to the simplistic view so many have regarding the drafting of the Constitution. As Van Cleve points out in another excellent book on America’s founding, the Constitution was hardly conceived as an infallible political document drafted ex nihilo by omniscient men. Rather, it was the product of many grudging compromises. What is so strikingly revealed by Rasmussen, therefore, is that even the people who drafted the document were dissatisfied with its outcome and pessimistic about its staying power. The book, in short, is full of lessons. On the one hand, the U.S. has overcome significant challenges, including ones the founders felt might be insurmountable. On the other hand, even those that built them felt the foundations on which the country rests stand on shaky ground. One is thus left with a sense of cautious optimism - extreme despair about American democracy is unwarranted, but at the same time Americans must continue to grapple with and overcome the problems that have plagued the United States since its founding. Not a bad message if you ask me.

[Fahad Qazi · Rating 5 out of 5]

As "The Father of His Country," Washington's foremost wish for his progeny was that it remain free of political parties and partisan-ship.4 All the founders at least professed an aversion to factions, as they were frequently called—this was a stock theme of eighteenth-century political discourse-but none loathed them more fiercely, consistently, and sincerely than he did. As Washington saw it, partisans are necessarily partial, meaning that they favor the interests of a parochial group over the public good. Whether that parochial group was centered on a geographic region, a socioeconomic class, a profession, a culture, an ideolo-gy, a religious sect, or some combination
thereof was immaterial: any form of favoritism was incompatible with the kind of disinterested virtue that Washington prized above all else.
Partisans could not be true patriots. Parties were also, in his view, fatal to republican gov-ernment. By sowing conflict, they divided the community and subverted public order; by opposing the government's actions, they prevented its effective administration; by favoring some over others, they opened the door to political corruption and foreign influence. From the beginning of the Revolution to the end of his life, Washington counseled anyone who would listen that factions were the gravest threat that the young nation faced. "If we mean to support the Liberty and Independence which it has cost us so much blood & treasure to establish," he warned just a year into his presi-dency, "we must drive far away the demon of party spirit."

“A storybook version of the ending would have the aged Washington sitting on his porch at Mount Vernon, savoring "the sweet enjoyment of ... the benign influence of good laws under a free government," as he had described his fondest hope in the conclusion of the Farewell Address.38 But it was not to be. Washington's vision of nonpartisan harmony was already an exceedingly distant one when he stepped down from the presidency, and now it had been exposed as a mirage. Throughout his life Washington had usually succeeded whenever he threw his energy and influence into an enterprise, but he failed at what was, to him, one of the most important: despite his mightiest efforts, he was unable to prevent the tides of partisanship from engulfing the country. And he had always insisted, since his days at the head of the Continental Army, that republican government could not survive for long under such conditions. As he neared the end of his life, then, Washington had good reason to fear that the "sacred fire of liberty" that had been entrusted to the American people might soon flicker out.39 Just weeks before his death, he wrote to James McHenry: "I have, for sometime past,
viewed the political concerns of the United States with an anxious, and painful eye.
They appear to me, to be moving by hasty strides to some awful crisis; but in what they will result—that Being, who sees, foresees, and directs all things, alone can tell."40
In Washington's view, in short, his great failure was also the nation's. "The Father of His Country" ended up being decidedly discouraged about his progeny's future.”

“Adams took his loss especially hard because he saw it as confirmation that there was no longer room for someone like himself—some-one who was willing to sacrifice himself or his party for the good of the nation—in American public life. In some respects, he knew, his successor would be inheriting the presidency at an auspicious moment. "I Shall leave the State with its Coffers full, and the fair prospect of peace with all the World Smiling in its face, its Commerce flourishing, its Navy glorious, its Agriculture uncommonly productive and lucra-tive," he boasted. Yet the peace and prosperity that America enjoyed was overshadowed by the degeneracy of its politics. A month before he left office, Adams wrote that "clouds black and gloomy hang over this country threatning a fierce tempest, arising merely from party conflicts at a time when the internal and external prosperity of it ... are the most pleasing and promising, that we ever beheld." A few days later he predicted that "we shall be tossed ... in the tempestuous sea of liberty for years to come & where the bark can land but in a political convulsion I cannot see." As always, the principal cause of the gloom and the tempests, in his eyes, was the absence of virtue in the American people: "Downright corruption has spread & increased in America more than I had any knowledge or suspicion of. Even parties themselves have no common principle of union that can long bind them together-not-
withstanding at times & for short periods, they show an astonishing unanimity."
Adams left the capital before dawn on the day of Jefferson's inauguration, leaving no messages and delivering no Farewell Address. He simply went back to Quincy to brood.”

“"THE WISDOM, which our fathers taught us, is despised. And the liberty, with which you, and they made us free, is little else than a cloak for licentiousness," Josiah Quincy III lamented to John Adams in 1811. The son of one of Adams's friends from his revolutionary days, Quincy was at this point a member of the House of Repre-sentatives, though he would go on to become mayor of Boston and then president of Harvard A staunch Federalist in an age of Republican dominance, Quincy had called for Jefferson's impeachment in the waning days of his second term, narrowly losing by a vote of 117 to 1. Now he was approaching Adams, the venerable elder statesman of his party and his state, for advice about how to combat the rising Republican tide. "I know not what fates await us," Quincy admitted, but he believed that the only way to avoid certain shipwreck was to adhere steadfastly to the founders' vision: "in the mysterious course pursuing, I can see no other way than to cast anchor upon long established principles and trust my own, and my country's fortune .. to their firmness."
Adams had long yearned for his fellow citizens to properly recognize and honor the central role that he had played in the Revolution, so he easily could have taken Quincy's missive as an opportunity to bask in the glow of much-deserved adulation. "I ought not to object to your Reverence for your Fathers as you call them," he replied, "much less can I be displeased at your numbring me among them.", Yet Adams was uncomfortable with the tendency of this new generation of Americans to look back at the founders as unerring heroes and unflinching patriots. Hence he decided to let Quincy in on what he called "a very great secret," confessing that "as far as I am capable of comparing the Merit of the different Periods, I have no reason to believe that We were better than you are. We had as many poor Creatures and selfish Beings, in proportion among us as you have among you: nor were there then more enlightened Men ... than there are now."

““Even Jefferson, whose disillusionment came long after he had retired from public life, continued to write copious letters of advice—many of them, alas, wildly misguided—to the nation’s lawmakers, administrators, and judges during his final decade, and he also devoted a great deal of energy to founding the University of Virginia in an effort to enrich the nation’s future.11 The founders’ penchant for meeting deep disappointment with steadfast resolve is one that we would do well to emulate in the face our own political tribulations.
If this is indeed the lesson that we draw from the founders’ disillusionment, then we must conclude that the sun that Franklin observed on the back of Washington’s chair in Independence Hall was neither simply rising nor simply setting, but rather beckoning the nation onward toward the horizon, on a never-ending quest to perpetuate and improve the founders’ creation.”

[Krispy_Pages · Rating 5 out of 5]

Benjamin Franklin’s observation to a woman that the United States was “a republic, if you can keep it” has become so ubiquitous that its original foreboding tone has almost been lost entirely. The phrase in our own day has become almost a cheerful maternal admonition. Yet, the Revolutionary generation that wrote the United States Constitution and shaped the American republic’s regime treated the phrase not so much as a kindly or triumphalist admonition, but as a threat with consequences that were near at hand.

Though Americans no longer deify the “Founding Fathers” in quite the way they once did, they do still tend to exalt and even venerate what the founders founded, namely the Constitution and the American form of government. Few Americans would even contemplate jettisoning any of the basic features of the constitutional order: The separation of powers into three branches, the checks and balances among those branches, the bicameral Congress, the division of sovereignty between national and local authorities, and the Bill of Rights.

Thus, it may come as something of a surprise, then, to learn that the founders themselves were, particularly by the end of their lives, far less confident in the merits of the political system that they had devised, and that many of them in fact deemed it an utter failure that was unlikely to last beyond their own generation.

The book, Fears of a Setting Sun, illustrates the story of the profound sense of disillusionment that plagued four of the preeminent figures of the period: George Washington, Alexander Hamilton, John Adams, and Thomas Jefferson.

These four lost their faith in the American experiment at different times and for different reasons, and each has his own unique story. George Washington became disillusioned above all because of the rise of parties and partisanship, Hamilton because he felt that the federal government was not sufficiently vigorous or energetic, John Adams because he believed that the American people lacked the requisite civic virtue for republican government, and Jefferson because of sectional divisions that were laid bare by conflict over the spread of slavery. Whatever sense of hope the founders may have felt at the new government’s birth, almost none of them carried that optimism to their graves.

This book is a necessary corrective, and also offers a helpfully subtle and thoughtful criticism of the originalist dogmatism that typifies conservative intellectual, legal, and political thought in the United States. The generation of American politicians and thinkers who wrote the fundamental laws of the United States did not stop thinking about politics or the nature of the regime they created when the Constitution was ratified in 1788. The founders, argued the author, should be understood as statesmen who believed their regime would have to respond on some level to historic, political, and social developments. This did not mean they affirmed the notion of a living constitution a la the late twentieth century progressives; but neither did it mean they were constitutional or legal antiquarians. Their society had failings, and their politics had failings. Far from being triumphalist American exceptionalists, the founders believed their regime was always closer to destruction than moderns have realized.

Washington looms large in the book’s narrative. The first president shaped the office and by proxy the American regime in important ways. Washington created the presidency even if he was not its statutory progenitor. Washington never saw the regime he oversaw as safe, largely because he believed that the development of what he called “factions” would inevitably lead to the downfall of the republic. Factions, or parties, inflamed political passions and infected everything with their divisive spirit.

Washington’s long-term disillusioned began to set in during the election year of 1792. The prior autumn Jefferson and Madison had, unbeknownst to Washington, started taking steps to organize opposition to the Hamilton-led Federalist program. The Freneau launched the National Gazatte in October 1791, and within a few months it emerged as a fawning admirer of Jefferson and a vicious critic of Hamilton. Freneau was unrelenting in his attack: every aspect of Hamilton ‘s financial program was depicted as a deliberate ploy to fleece everyday Americans and further enrich greedy merchants, as well as a dangerous power grab on behalf of the federal government that would inevitably pave the road toward monarchy. In response, the pro-administration papers grew ever more strident and colorful in their denunciations of the emerging Republican party. The result was an increasing spiral of invective, scandalmongering, and bald-faced lies that makes much of today’s “fake news” appear rather tame by comparisons. The partisan newspapers were truly scandalous. Indeed, never in American history has the press been more vitriolic and more scurrilous than it was in the 1790s.

Washington’s two terms saw parties divide the American populace over everything from foreign policy to economics. The author is careful to note that Washington was not naïve. The first president did not believe that American politicians or their policies would be the province of pure-minded selfless individuals, nor did he think that corruption would be proscribed entirely. He did, however, assume that party conflict would be relatively short-lived, and that it would only define political life in the American republic at irregular intervals during times of acute political controversy. Parties would rise, fight out the issue that needed resolution, and then fade again quickly after. The fact that parties became permanent fixtures in the American political milieu worried Washington to the degree that he believed factional disagreements would kill the republic.

No Federalist politician defined Washington’s administration more than Secretary of the Treasury Alexander Hamilton, and no prominent politico had graver concerns over the very nature of the American republic from the outset of its creation. Hamilton feared as early as the 1780s that the newly created central government that succeeded the Articles of Confederation would not have sufficient energy, or vitality. Hamilton’s dispositions, Rasmussen noted, ran counter to the intellectual and political mood of the Federalist Era. Federalism—the states retaining a significant measure of power vis a vis the central government—of some sort remained the goal of most congressmen in the last decade of the eighteenth century; Hamilton’s robust nationalism found its outlet in financial and economic policy.

Hamilton’s nationalism stemmed from his own massive personal ambition and his ambitions for the United States. More so than any other member of the founding generation, Hamilton used the language of empire in its traditional sense. The model state in his mind remained Great Britain. An American republic that never developed in to anything more than a North American confederation of loosely-joined states would never achieve the type of greatness that would allow the United States to eventually compete on the world state with the great empires of the day: Britain, France, Spain, and Russia, all of which retained territorial ambitions on the North American continent in 1790. Nationalism, and the centralizing of control of the republican empire in the federal government, fixed Hamilton’s political mind on the role of state authority in the early national United States. That his fellow Americans worried more about the potential rise of monarchy, and seemed blissfully unconcerned about anarchy, drove Hamilton’s disquiet to the point where he flirted with notions of militarism and other forms of authoritarianism in the years following Washington’s death in 1799.

Hamilton’s bête noire when he left power in 1797 was not Thomas Jefferson or other prominent followers of Jefferson. Rather, Hamilton clashed most prominently with Washington’s successor, John Adams. The second president, unlike Washington or Hamilton, worried more over the moral and social condition of the American people than the potential structural or institutional weaknesses in the republic’s political framework. Adams famously insisted that the United States’ constitution was only fit for a religious people. The tie between religion and virtue was never very far from Adams’ mind, and he seemed unconvinced that Americans exemplified the appropriate degree of virtue to maintain republic government. Adams warned particularly about American avarice. Certain classes of men slouched towards penury almost by nature, and this sort of greed and social climbing eventually could overwhelm the constitutional framework. Like classical Rome, the United States could be subverted by designing men who used the greed and class resentment of the masses against the natural aristocrats that Adams believed should rightly rule the United States. His solution was, the author notes, to institutionalize potential class conflict in respective federal institutions and give them a voice—a political release valve—that ensured their concerns might be addressed before they metastasized into a grave social ill that threatened the republic.

Thomas Jefferson didn’t share Adams’ low view of humanity, but he did share an ominous sense that the republic he worked so long to create in the American Revolution was not long for this world. Jefferson in particular worried that the agrarian republic he hoped the Constitution might sustain was being quickly turned into a crass society of urban bankers, lawyers, and capitalists who would import all the vices of the British Empire that the War for Independence had just thrown off. Jefferson is often portrayed as a silent brooding presence in American politics, but the author notes that in some ways Jefferson’s despair for the American republic was interrupted more regularly than other figures analyzed in the book. Jefferson’s election to the presidency in 1800 and the United States’ victory in the War of 1812 provided evidence for the Virginian that all was not lost for the republic. The main source of fear for Jefferson in his last years was not Hamiltonian Federalists—they had been thoroughly vanquished by 1820 and his Republicans ruled the American republic—but the status of slavery and how it might affect the Union. The controversy over slavery, the third president prophesied, would be the death knell of the Union.

To summarize, Fears of a Setting Sun has offered a valuable and important volume not only for scholars, but for interested laypeople and religious ministers as well. The men who very literally created the American political order did not view American politics as static or sacrosanct. Changes, and significant changes, might be needed from time to time to keep the republic from falling into anarchy and its people into license. The founders, to their credit, didn’t sacralize their moment in history; they saw the social and political ills of their time with eyes wide open. So too should their successors in American politics and intellectual life.

[Andrew Balog · Rating 5 out of 5]

Washington: consensus. Hamilton: energy. Adams: virtue. Jefferson: optimism. Madison: decentralization and realism.

This is a fascinating book that gets you out of the founder's worship headspace that many modern amateur historians and political commentators find themselves in. The Constitutional Convention may have been a collection of demigods, but each one of those framers harbored severe doubts and anxieties about the future of the nation. The common thread through all of them was that they worked tirelessly to build the foundation of our country, fighting tooth and nail to give all they had to the system they largely created.

This book does a great job at giving John Adams his flowers, especially as he is often overlooked between the personality dynamos of Hamilton and Jefferson. It also does a great job at exposing the inconsistencies in some of their viewpoints, such as pointing out that by the end of Jefferson's life, he had broken so far into the pro-slavery camp that his younger self would have been unrecognizable.

I'm all for any book that points out that our founders weren't as smart as we give them credit, and that they too had warts and skeletons in their closets. They themselves acknowledged that the Constitution was an imperfect compromise, and had many defects and faults but was simply the best they could do at the time. For those in modern society who read the Constitution through a very strict/textual lens, this should be a convenient reminder that the framers could never have dreamed up our modern world.

And finally, how does the framers' pessimism compare to modern America? They all saw the fall of America as imminent in one way or another, and yet here we are (except for, uhh...that small thing called the Civil War). In the closing chapter, Rasmussen uses this as evidence that maybe our concerns about modern America (*cough* Donald Trump *cough*) are overblown. But I raise this in response: I don't think the framers could have ever anticipated that someone this legally, morally, constitutionally, and intellectually illiterate/decrepit would ever ascend to the presidency. Biden, Obama, Bush 2, Clinton, Bush 1, Reagan, etc. never threatened the very rule of law or attempted a coup. We are in unchartered territory, but reading this gave me some sense of closure. Maybe the founders were on to something. If we take Madison's more realistic view of America and Americans, maybe we should just be happy we made it this far.


Some of my favorite quotes (honestly, John Adams produced nothing but insanely awesome quotes):

"One of the key insights that Adams gleaned from his studies was that republican government depended not just on the right institutions but also on the people's character. Above all, no country could remain free for long unless its citizens exhibited a sense of civic virtue, of patriotism, of duty - a willingness to put the public good ahead of their own."

"...he (Adams) was seeking to determine - for himself and his country - whether it was possible to compensate for a lack of virtue within a republic through the proper political structure."

"Instead, he (Adams) described America's independence as "a Memorable epoch in the annals of the human race; destined, in future history, to form the brightest or the blackest page, according to the use or the abuse of those political institutions by which they shall, in time to come, be Shaped, by the human mind."

"While such reforms might help at the margins, the fact that many of today's problems have been with the nation since its inception suggests that they may be more systemic in nature than we often realize - but also that they are less likely to ultimately doom the republic than we often fear."

"If this is indeed the lesson that we draw from the founders' disillusionment, then we must conclude that the sun that Franklin observed on the back of Washington's chair in Independence Hall was neither simply rising nor simply setting, but rather beckoning the nation onward toward the horizon, on a never-ending quest to perpetuate and improve the founders' creation."

[Caroline · Rating 5 out of 5]

What an interesting book! Rasmussen says that he had noticed all the major founders of the US became despairing about what they had created, believing it would not last long past their own lives, and since no one had studied this, he set out to do it. Because he does not attempt to dig deeply into the thought of each person, the book is a smooth comfortable read, but he manages to give a clear idea of each founder's political views.
Washington believed the country would fail because of parties and faction - that loyalty to party would outrank loyalty to country. Adams believed the country would fail because of the selfishness and ignorance of the people - that instead of the "virtue" to recognize and work for the common good, people would care only about themselves and their money. Hamilton believed the country would fail because the federal government was not strong enough to overcome the centrifugal force of the states with their myopia and their lack of concern for the whole nation, or to stand with the other nations of the world and remain safe from conquest. Jefferson believed the country would fail because the central government was too strong and the states would end up breaking apart to go their own ways; he also famously thought the industrial and mercantile America would have less virtue than the agrarian paradise of the south (the widespread use of enslaved people as labor notwithstanding).
The more I read about this period in history the more disillusioned with Jefferson I become - he was a self deluding hypocrite. "Jefferson remained steadfastly opposed to the production of goods in large, urban factories for export abroad. He regarded the kind of industrial society and economy that had by then become firmly entrenched in the North - and that he feared was gradually making its way southward and westward - as an inescapable source of luxury, inequality, dependence, and corruption. That Jefferson was able to sit in the ornate villa that he had built on his large plantation, surrounded by hundreds of enslaved laborers, and conclude with all sincerity that agriculture was the sure route to simplicity, equality, independence, and virtue is yet another testament to his capacity for willful blindness and self-deception." Indeed.
The founder who did not despair was Madison. This was partly temperament, but also he expected less of Americans so was less disappointed when they turned out to be the same as everybody else. He took a long view, and because of the storms already weathered in his long life, he believed more could also be survived. The nullification crisis of the 1830s made clear how he had never gone as far as Jefferson in opposing a strong federal government, although he did not support everything Hamilton wanted to do.
Rasmussen points out that every fear these five men had about America and Americans still plagues us today, and that perhaps we can take some Madisonian comfort in the fact that we have survived them before, and worse. This book is a very timely one.

[Joseph Stieb · Rating 5 out of 5]

It's very hard to find creative approaches to the Founding Era, but this book did it! DR shows how many of the Founders came to believe that America was on the wrong track politically and socially by the ends of their lives, albeit for reasons that differed depending on their own outlooks and ideologies.

Hamilton, although he died relatively young, believed that the Constitution was not nearly strong enough and that the US was not developing the kinds of centralized military, economic, and financial institutions needed to transform a loose confederation of colonies into a powerful, modern nations. Washington lamented the rise of political parties and the increasing acrimony of American politics, which violated the republican ideal, even though he also leaned more on the Federalists over the course of his presidency. Adams bemoaned the American people's loss of virtue; he believed the Revolution was a time of great self-sacrifice and communal spirit, but from the 1970s onward the country had become shallow, selfish, and decadent. Finally, Jefferson came to bewail rising sectionalism and antagonism over the issue of slavery, which he believed would rend the union in half if the issue was pressed too hard (he also became much more of a states-rights advocate at the end of his life).

DR argues that the exception to this rule of pessimism was James Madison. Madison, as the Constitution's primary architect, obviously had an incentive to say that his own creation was going great, but he was also very sanguine and level-headed about politics. As shown in the Fed Papers and other writings, Madison never expected all that much from human beings, viewing them as flawed and selfish. But he did watch (and help) the country grow into a commercial and continental power, living until the mid-1830s. If anything, this book increased my already considerable respect for Madison.

It was fascinating to see the full humanity of all of these figures in this book, which is both concise and entertaining. The book is a nice antidote to the arguments (of which conservatives are especially fond) that A. There is a single "original intent" behind the Constitution that we must discover and follow vigorously and B. That they were these god-like figures who expected their structure of government to last forever. In fact, most of them believed the Constitutional system or even the nation itself might not last long, and they all expected (and in some cases wanted) further amendments and rethinking of our government and society. In that sense, they were wiser and more human than the view of "founders as demi-gods" gives them credit for.

Highly recommended book even for those who have already read a lot of Founding-era history.

[Matthew Tortora · Rating 3 out of 5]

Could've been a Substack article.

It is not a bad book by any means, it is written in a somewhat engaging way, at least by non-fiction history standards anyways, and contains some good info but I have 3 issues with it:

1. It is too long for what it is.
This book is mostly a collection of primary and secondary sources of the Founders writings and attitudes including their waining years in public office and retirement years. That being said, it often feels like the book hits the same point on the head over and over again, page upon page of "look see they said X about Y in this letter too!" this leaves the book dragging, especially in the context of the remaining two issues I had with it:

2. Who is this for?
Despite being 3/4 of the way through a B.A. in history, I wouldn't say I'm an avid pop history reader, even with that in mind I wasn't really surprised or even unfamiliar with much, if all of the content in this book. It does seem to hinge on some familiarity on the general history of the period and its subjects so the book occupies a really weird spot as too shallow for history readers and too deep for middle school. I think ultimately it could be used as a very good tool in High school and survery course/100 level American histories, though much of the commentary would have to come from the teachers, which is my last point:

3. The book doesn't really say anything.
The book contains plenty of excerpts from the founders in question regarding main thesis of the book: that the founders got upset, disillusioned, and lost optimism. The issue here is twofold, firstly that it doesn't use these to advance any broader analysis of the period, politics, or comparison to our political struggles we face now. Secondly is a framing issue, because the book hinges the disillusionment aspect on certain pain points the founders had over policies and direction of politics in the early republic, readers who have read more comprehensive histories or biographies will note this is how most of them wrote on any subject they didn't like or took issue with. This is further worsened by the fact that, as previously mentioned, the book doesn't go anywhere with all its collections of quotes, it just lets it sit. Which ultimately left me feeling like "Okay, yah, sure, I know, is that it?"

Again, it is not a bad book, but it is too long to be an entry level read, and while being this long, lacking in any significant analysis or synthesis to make it a worthwile read for non-entry level readers. Thats why if I had to describe it in a sentence it would be "Could've been a substack article." I could definitely recommend as a read for someone with an interest in the period or subjects just starting out in history books. But then again, I'd also recommend books that are a little broader and deeper without the bent towards making a point about disillusionment, that doesnt even really stick. I don't really know where it sits, on my shelf, I guess.

[Bruce Katz · Rating 3 out of 5]

I write this on July 4, 2025. Given the nature of our times I am unwilling to write a review. I will let the book and the Founders speak for themselves.

"...the founders themselves were, particularly by the end of their lives, far less confident in the merits of the political system that they had devised, and... many of them in fact deemed it an utter failure that was unlikely to last beyond their own generation."

"Washington became disillusioned above all because of the rise of parties and partisanship, Hamilton because he felt that the federal government was not sufficiently vigorous or energetic, Adams because he believed that the American people lacked the requisite civic virtue for republican government, and Jefferson because of sectional divisions that were laid bare by conflict over the spread of slavery."

"...so much Venality and Corruption, so much Avarice and Ambition, such a Rage for Profit and Commerce among all Ranks and Degrees of Men even in America, that I sometimes doubt whether there is public Virtue enough to support a Republic.” (John Adams)

"I regret that I am now to die in the belief that the useless sacrifice of themselves, by the generation of ’76. to acquire self government and happiness to their country, is to be thrown away by the unwise and unworthy passions of their sons, and that my only consolation is to be that I live not to weep over it." (Thomas Jefferson)

"...liberty can no more exist without virtue … than the body can live and move without a soul.” (John Adams)

Depressing, yeah, but it ain't over. I could quote Dr King about the danger of despair, or Orwell on resisting evil, or Burke (even though there's no evidence he ever said it) about the inaction of good men. But I'll just go with John Lewis: "Do not get lost in a sea of despair. Be hopeful, be optimistic. Our struggle is not the struggle of a day, a week, a month, or a year, it is the struggle of a lifetime. Never, ever be afraid to make some noise and get in good trouble, necessary trouble."

[John Findlay · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is a fascinating book that I wish many people would read. There is a tendency in America to treat the founders, particularly those at the Constitutional Convention, as demigods and their product, the Constitution, as a perfect document. This book dispels that notion. The Constitution was a compromise with many obvious flaws, and many of the delegates had issues with portions of it. Nobody got everything they wanted, and leading Americans at that time, and over the next 50 years, questioned how long it would survive. The author focuses on Washington, Hamilton, Adams, and Jefferson in particular, and also includes a section on Madison, the most optimistic of the bunch. The first four listed had doubts about the Constitution for different reasons. Overly simplistically, Washington was concerned about the partisan politics that developed quickly, Hamilton felt the federal government was too weak, Adams felt that the people lacked sufficient virtue to put national interests ahead of self, and Jefferson decried the concentration of powers in the federal government as well as the split between North and South on the question of spreading slavery into the new western states. Once again, Jefferson is shown to be a hypocrite and turncoat on slavery, initially recognizing it as evil but later being an avid proponent of allowing slavery in western states. One must read the book to better understand the nuances behind this summary. Interestingly, Madison remained the most optimistic not because he felt the Constitution was perfect, but because he felt it was the best alternative. This book is worth reading and I hope many people will do so.

[Matthew Mechtly · Rating 3 out of 5]

On one hand, the history relayed through this book was tremendously interesting and offered a unique perspective following the events of drafting of the Constitution and Bill of Rights. On the other hand, the fundamental argument that this book was making (namely that almost all the founders were extremely bearish on the American experiment by the time of their death) was fundamentally flawed for one simple reason: selection bias.

The basis for the argument were essentially based on the publicly available letters written by the Washington, Adams, Hamilton, Jefferson, and Madison. The primary problem with using this approach to encapsulate the feelings of each founder is that correspondence only offer a certain slice of an individual's evolving perspectives and likely would be written at someone's worse point.

This is an extremely well understood phenomena in customer analytics: people who have a 1-star experience with a product are much much much more likely to leave a review than those who have 3, 4, or 5-star experiences. In that same sense, only surveying the opinions of a person using the correspondence which they felt important enough to send as a letter likely leads to a sampling bias problem.

In summary, read this book for the interesting historical narrative and the drama of the turmoil that almost engulfed the US immediately after the founding. But don't read it and think that the arguments presented are analytically rigorous.

[Victoria Caro · Rating 5 out of 5]

Fears of a Setting Sun is an interesting peek into the hearts of some of the Founding Founders like Washington, Hamilton, Adams or Jefferson during their later years, as they harbored growing concerns for the viability of America in the face of evolving external conflicts and growing internal divisions. Some for idealistic reasons and others for pragmatic ones began to question the capacity of the Constitution, the vigor of the government or the civil virtue of the people to withstand political partisanship, economic divergence and social divide, and their vulnerability to foreign influence.

Conflict and division have defined the history of the world. The inception of the United States itself is the result of it. So, it would be naïve for these men to think that their experiment would be safe from it. And that's the point, they weren't. As the reality around them continued to evolve and develop new daunting challenges, it was logical for them to discouragingly second-guess the fortitude of their legacy.

As it turned out, the United States' Constitution and democratic institutions have stood the test of time, at least, for now. But let's be honest, there have been some serious trying times saved by great figures who rose to the occasion. So, while we hope that such figures continue to sprout as needed, it would be wise for "the people" not to rely solely on that. However discordant in thought and opinion, never forget what makes you strong: Unity.

[AE Campbell · Rating 3 out of 5]

Interesting premise. It was interesting to see how what the Founders thought about their Constitution changed over time. However, it is hard to say how much blame for their disillusionment they had for the Constitution itself. Hamilton and Jefferson seem worried that their political projects are imperiled, while Washington and Adams seem disappointed that mankind is not as perfectible as they had hoped. These outcomes could have been reached under any political arrangement.

Washington and Hamilton seem particularly frustrated by partisanship, which in their perspective was awfully similar to the increasing influence of Jefferson. For his part, Jefferson appears the most unhappy with the Constitution, still suggesting decentralization and decrying the Supreme Court until his final days. Adams is disappointed at Americans' lack of virtue; Jefferson remains confident that Americans are fundamentally republican.

The author's conclusion cheers modern America's broad democracy, civil rights, and abolition of slavery. This is a bit ironic, considering how "monocratic Anglomen" like Washington and Hamilton were disappointed to see the early country become more democratic and how noted states-rights enthusiast Jefferson would probably have been on the losing sides of 1865 and 1965. However, the author does catch another funny twist of fate: modern criticism of the Founders and Constitution is abhorred, while the Founders abhorred each other and criticized the Constitution.