What do you think?
Rate this book
Revolutionaries: A New History of the Invention of America
In the early 1770s, the men who invented America were living quiet, provincial lives in the rustic backwaters of the New World, devoted primarily to family, craft, and the private pursuit of wealth and happiness. None set out to become "revolutionary" by ambition, but when events in Boston escalated, they found themselves thrust into a crisis that moved, in a matter of months, from protest to war.
In this remarkable book, the historian Jack Rakove shows how the private lives of these men were suddenly transformed into public careershow Washington became a strategist, Franklin a pioneering cultural diplomat, Madison a sophisticated constitutional thinker, and Hamilton a brilliant policymaker. Rakove shakes off accepted notions of these men as godlike visionaries, focusing instead on the evolution of their ideas and the crystallizing of their purpose. In Revolutionaries, we see the founders before they were fully formed leaders, as individuals whose lives were radically altered by the explosive events of the mid-1770s. They were ordinary men who became extraordinarya transformation that finally has the literary treatment it deserves.
Spanning the two crucial decades of the country’s birth, from 1773 to 1792, Revolutionaries uses little-known stories of these famous (and not so famous) men to capturein a way no single biography ever couldthe intensely creative period of the republic’s founding. From the Boston Tea Party to the First Continental Congress, from Trenton to Valley Forge, from the ratification of the Constitution to the disputes that led to our two-party system, Rakove explores the competing views of politics, war, diplomacy, and society that shaped our nation.
Thoughtful, clear-minded, and persuasive, Revolutionaries is a majestic blend of narrative and intellectual history, one of those rare books that makes us think afresh about how the country came to be, and why the idea of America endures.
JACK RAKOVE, the William Robertson Coe Professor of History and American Studies and a professor of political science at Stanford University, is one the most distinguished historians of the early American republic. He is the author of, among other books, Original
Meanings: Politics and Ideas in the Making of the Constitution, which won the Pulitzer Prize in 1997. He frequently writes op-ed articles for the New York Times, the Washington Post, and other major newspapers. He has been an expert witness in Indian land claims litigation and has testified in Congress on impeachment.
501 pages, Kindle Edition
First published January 1, 2010
407 people are currently reading
2300 people want to read
About the author
Jack N. Rakove
50 books50 followersJack Rakove is the William Robertson Coe Professor of History and American Studies and professor of political science and (by courtesy) law at Stanford, where he has taught since 1980. His principal areas of research include the origins of the American Revolution and Constitution, the political practice and theory of James Madison, and the role of historical knowledge in constitutional litigation. He is the author of six books, including Original Meanings: Politics and Ideas in the Making of the Constitution (1996), which won the Pulitzer Prize in History, and Revolutionaries: A New History of the Invention of America (2010), which was a finalist for the George Washington Prize, and the editor of seven others, including The Unfinished Election of 2000 (2001). He is a member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, the American Philosophical Society, and a past president of the Society for the History of the Early American Republic.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 96 reviews
February 1, 2024
3.5*
Rakove, who won a Pulitzer in 1997, leaves no fact unturned or unexamined, in the story of the conflict between the British and their American colonies and the subsequent struggle of the Americans to create a stable, workable government.
It would certainly help if the reader already knows a good deal about the era for Rakove's narrative is nonlinear. He tells the story through the individuals, famous and less so, who were responsible for fighting the war and creating the government. Therefore, he goes forward and backward in time and a reader without good background knowledge of the era is likely to get lost in the detailed maze of names, dates, ideas and actions, which at times become repetitive.
Its all there, but one has to work for it, which is why ratings on Goodreads rank from one to five -- and there might have been some zeroes if that had been an option. My own rating for the book is five stars for information and two for writing.
Rakove, who won a Pulitzer in 1997, leaves no fact unturned or unexamined, in the story of the conflict between the British and their American colonies and the subsequent struggle of the Americans to create a stable, workable government.
It would certainly help if the reader already knows a good deal about the era for Rakove's narrative is nonlinear. He tells the story through the individuals, famous and less so, who were responsible for fighting the war and creating the government. Therefore, he goes forward and backward in time and a reader without good background knowledge of the era is likely to get lost in the detailed maze of names, dates, ideas and actions, which at times become repetitive.
Its all there, but one has to work for it, which is why ratings on Goodreads rank from one to five -- and there might have been some zeroes if that had been an option. My own rating for the book is five stars for information and two for writing.
January 1, 2025
MUDDLED AT BEST
Revolutionaries tackles the well-tilled ground of the Revolutionary War and America's journey to independence. Chronicling the men, the times, events and ultimately the breach with Mother England resulting in the birth of our nation, the author attempts to distinguish whether our Founding Fathers drove the circumstances or the circumstances drove them. (The answer is yes to both depending on the individual.) One may wonder if we need another book on these historically poignant times and the answer is absolutely. A new perspective and new information are always welcome; unfortunately - for this reader - this book doesn't provide either.
In a word I found this book muddled. Although the book's premise is valid with many of the familiar historical figures - For instance Samuel Adams was a true red, white and blue revolutionary from the get-go; George Washington took much longer in crossing the independence chasm and there are many more examples including Ben Franklin, John Adams, John Dickinson and Thomas Jefferson - the thesis and even the telling of the story gets bogged down with curiously chosen anecdotes and quotes - most, if not all of which, you've read elsewhere.
Unfortunately this "new" history is anything but. You'll be much better served reading books on this subject by Joseph Ellis, David McCullough, A. J. Langguth, Ron Chernow, Thomas Fleming and David O. Stewart.
Revolutionaries tackles the well-tilled ground of the Revolutionary War and America's journey to independence. Chronicling the men, the times, events and ultimately the breach with Mother England resulting in the birth of our nation, the author attempts to distinguish whether our Founding Fathers drove the circumstances or the circumstances drove them. (The answer is yes to both depending on the individual.) One may wonder if we need another book on these historically poignant times and the answer is absolutely. A new perspective and new information are always welcome; unfortunately - for this reader - this book doesn't provide either.
In a word I found this book muddled. Although the book's premise is valid with many of the familiar historical figures - For instance Samuel Adams was a true red, white and blue revolutionary from the get-go; George Washington took much longer in crossing the independence chasm and there are many more examples including Ben Franklin, John Adams, John Dickinson and Thomas Jefferson - the thesis and even the telling of the story gets bogged down with curiously chosen anecdotes and quotes - most, if not all of which, you've read elsewhere.
Unfortunately this "new" history is anything but. You'll be much better served reading books on this subject by Joseph Ellis, David McCullough, A. J. Langguth, Ron Chernow, Thomas Fleming and David O. Stewart.
June 17, 2011
How do 'simple' men go from being farmers and lawyers and businessmen in 1770 to the leaders of a new nation by 1793? That is the central question found in Jack Rakove's book Revolutionaries .
Rakove focuses on the period of time between 1770 and 1793 because in these years the foundational questions of what type of country we would become were decided by a relatively small group of individuals. These individuals' personalities, history, and charater became essential to the American founding.
In one sense, Rakove's book can be seen almost as a prequel to Ellis' Founding Brothers . Both write in a similiar style with a similiar method; they focus their attention on one predominant person and elaborates on the themes surrounding them at a particular junction in time. For example: Rakove focuses on Jefferson's experience in Paris and Madison's leadership during the Constitutional convention; Ellis in his book highlights Hamilton's duel. By doing this, Rakove and Ellis are to focus their attention on the Founding Father's personality but also give insight to the events of the day.
There can be no doubt, however that Rakove provides the superior work. His choice of focusing on a larger time period (Ellis narrows his attention on the 1790s) and his detailed research provide the reader with a broader panaromic in which to understand the events that led to our nations's founding.
Reading this book can also help get our minds around some of our current debates as well. Rakove does well at undermining the myth that there was one universal concept of 'America'. Rather, the country was founded by people with very different personalites, tempermanments, and visions for the future of the nation.
Rakove does a fantastic job at examining even the reason for independence, citing the moderate's reluctance to go to war. This part of American history needs to be heard more often.
I highly recommend this book for anybody desiring to know more about the personalities invovled in the formation of the United States.
Rakove focuses on the period of time between 1770 and 1793 because in these years the foundational questions of what type of country we would become were decided by a relatively small group of individuals. These individuals' personalities, history, and charater became essential to the American founding.
In one sense, Rakove's book can be seen almost as a prequel to Ellis' Founding Brothers . Both write in a similiar style with a similiar method; they focus their attention on one predominant person and elaborates on the themes surrounding them at a particular junction in time. For example: Rakove focuses on Jefferson's experience in Paris and Madison's leadership during the Constitutional convention; Ellis in his book highlights Hamilton's duel. By doing this, Rakove and Ellis are to focus their attention on the Founding Father's personality but also give insight to the events of the day.
There can be no doubt, however that Rakove provides the superior work. His choice of focusing on a larger time period (Ellis narrows his attention on the 1790s) and his detailed research provide the reader with a broader panaromic in which to understand the events that led to our nations's founding.
Reading this book can also help get our minds around some of our current debates as well. Rakove does well at undermining the myth that there was one universal concept of 'America'. Rather, the country was founded by people with very different personalites, tempermanments, and visions for the future of the nation.
Rakove does a fantastic job at examining even the reason for independence, citing the moderate's reluctance to go to war. This part of American history needs to be heard more often.
I highly recommend this book for anybody desiring to know more about the personalities invovled in the formation of the United States.
January 10, 2025
A fast-paced, engaging and very readable work.
The book deals mostly with the revolutionaries’ ideas, and reads like a collection of essays. Each chapter of the book features different personalities and themes, and much of it deals with American institutions, such as the military, slavery, or American government. Rakove does a good job describing the Founders’ thinking and in stripping away traditional mythology, and in portraying the founders as human. Much of the book deals with how they were thrust into leadership positions, often against their own inclinations. Rakove also emphasizes that the Founders were often divided on weighty issues.
The narrative is nuanced and insightful, if a bit dry. The book flows well and all the chapters help form a cohesive story. Rakove also does a good job clearly explaining recent scholarship on the subject, though the book doesn’t really have a main argument of its own.
Sometimes Rakove refers to people who seem irrelevant, like Abraham Lincoln or John F. Kennedy. The narrative can sometimes feel a bit gossipy. The writing sometimes seems to copy the style of the eighteenth-century writers for some reason. There is little on the Articles of Confederation (though more on the Constitution) The nuances and contradictions of Jefferson’s thinking about slavery could have been explained better.
A dense but lively and well-written work.
The book deals mostly with the revolutionaries’ ideas, and reads like a collection of essays. Each chapter of the book features different personalities and themes, and much of it deals with American institutions, such as the military, slavery, or American government. Rakove does a good job describing the Founders’ thinking and in stripping away traditional mythology, and in portraying the founders as human. Much of the book deals with how they were thrust into leadership positions, often against their own inclinations. Rakove also emphasizes that the Founders were often divided on weighty issues.
The narrative is nuanced and insightful, if a bit dry. The book flows well and all the chapters help form a cohesive story. Rakove also does a good job clearly explaining recent scholarship on the subject, though the book doesn’t really have a main argument of its own.
Sometimes Rakove refers to people who seem irrelevant, like Abraham Lincoln or John F. Kennedy. The narrative can sometimes feel a bit gossipy. The writing sometimes seems to copy the style of the eighteenth-century writers for some reason. There is little on the Articles of Confederation (though more on the Constitution) The nuances and contradictions of Jefferson’s thinking about slavery could have been explained better.
A dense but lively and well-written work.
November 13, 2011
I wish I could say I thoroughly enjoyed this book, but I didn't. That isn't to say it isn't a good read, because it is, but it's much more informative than enthralling. I found it hard-going but worth persevering with, if that makes any sense!
It's very much a political history of the major characters involved in the Revolution and the creation of the fledgling United States, rather than a social or military history of the Revolution itself. I found myself learning far more than I'd ever intended to about the political philosophies of Adams, Hamilton, Jefferson, Madison, Franklin, Jay and Washington. The author is quite clearly an expert in his field and he admirably succeeds in condensing some quite complicated political issues into something accessible.
What I found of particular note was his exploration of how the colonists turned from loyalists with a particular set of issues and concerns to revolutionaries intent of independence and forging a new nation. Despite the myths and legends, independence was never a foregone conclusion, and it seems that the British crown and parliament couldn't have mishandled the entire situation more badly if they'd tried.
It's very much a political history of the major characters involved in the Revolution and the creation of the fledgling United States, rather than a social or military history of the Revolution itself. I found myself learning far more than I'd ever intended to about the political philosophies of Adams, Hamilton, Jefferson, Madison, Franklin, Jay and Washington. The author is quite clearly an expert in his field and he admirably succeeds in condensing some quite complicated political issues into something accessible.
What I found of particular note was his exploration of how the colonists turned from loyalists with a particular set of issues and concerns to revolutionaries intent of independence and forging a new nation. Despite the myths and legends, independence was never a foregone conclusion, and it seems that the British crown and parliament couldn't have mishandled the entire situation more badly if they'd tried.
September 28, 2021
“Washington never allowed the army to disdain its civilian superiors. Fabius was the role circumstances forced him to play, Cincinnatus the character his own more closely resembled.”
If you read only one history book about the American revolutionary period, read this one. That said, readers without a passing knowledge of the 1770s and 80s may get lost in Rakove frequent digressions and flashbacks within flashbacks.
“Where the ideologue Adams believed that a raw lust for power was driving Britain’s leaders to seek dominion over America, Morris preferred to blame obtuse stupidity and miscalculation. But both agreed that British missteps, rather than American desires, had brought the colonies to the point of independence.”
Rakove is of the people-make-history school, but also posits that some people rise to the challenge better than others. This collection of mini biographies is fleshed out by considering more than the obvious giants of the age.
“Madison was at once a constitutional radical, celebrating the capacity of his countrymen to rethink basic questions of republican government, and a political conservative who never underestimated the risks they were taking. That too was part of his political genius.”
Unlike so many modern historians, Rakove keeps his opinions to himself and does not batter the reader with his agenda. There’s plenty of credit and blamer for most everything that went right and wrong.
“All of them shared that one characteristic that Hamilton memorialized in Nathanael Greene. ‘Those great revolutions which sometimes convulse society,’ Hamilton reminded his brother officers of the Cincinnati, had also this merit: ‘that they serve to bring to light talents and virtues which might otherwise have languished in obscurity or only shot forth a few scattered and wandering rays.’”
If you read only one history book about the American revolutionary period, read this one. That said, readers without a passing knowledge of the 1770s and 80s may get lost in Rakove frequent digressions and flashbacks within flashbacks.
“Where the ideologue Adams believed that a raw lust for power was driving Britain’s leaders to seek dominion over America, Morris preferred to blame obtuse stupidity and miscalculation. But both agreed that British missteps, rather than American desires, had brought the colonies to the point of independence.”
Rakove is of the people-make-history school, but also posits that some people rise to the challenge better than others. This collection of mini biographies is fleshed out by considering more than the obvious giants of the age.
“Madison was at once a constitutional radical, celebrating the capacity of his countrymen to rethink basic questions of republican government, and a political conservative who never underestimated the risks they were taking. That too was part of his political genius.”
Unlike so many modern historians, Rakove keeps his opinions to himself and does not batter the reader with his agenda. There’s plenty of credit and blamer for most everything that went right and wrong.
“All of them shared that one characteristic that Hamilton memorialized in Nathanael Greene. ‘Those great revolutions which sometimes convulse society,’ Hamilton reminded his brother officers of the Cincinnati, had also this merit: ‘that they serve to bring to light talents and virtues which might otherwise have languished in obscurity or only shot forth a few scattered and wandering rays.’”
December 3, 2010
For the better part of a century, Americans have alternated between idolizing the nation's revolutionary generation and muckraking them. One moment they are portrayed as demi-gods, the instruments of Divine Providence; the next moment, they are reactionaries and slaveholders, fighting to protect property and slavery.
In Revolutionaries, Jack Rakove's beautifully written group portrait of the founding generations, they are placed where they belong: in their own time and their own place. Rakove shows how two generations of American provincials got swept up by history and came to make history of their own. And through their stories he delivers a smart and readable account of the revolutionary crisis, the war itself, the chaos of the 1780s, the making of the Constitution, and the first years of the early Republic. Each of the major players, from John Adams to Alexander Hamilton, come vividly to life in his account, with all their strengths and flaws. (And for those who have imbibed the John Adams worship of the last decade, Rakove's more nuanced account will be a particularly useful elixir.) If you've always wanted to know something more about the revolutionary generation and its challenges than the cartoon versions offered by our politics and popular culture, Rakove's Revolutionaries is the perfect place to start.
In Revolutionaries, Jack Rakove's beautifully written group portrait of the founding generations, they are placed where they belong: in their own time and their own place. Rakove shows how two generations of American provincials got swept up by history and came to make history of their own. And through their stories he delivers a smart and readable account of the revolutionary crisis, the war itself, the chaos of the 1780s, the making of the Constitution, and the first years of the early Republic. Each of the major players, from John Adams to Alexander Hamilton, come vividly to life in his account, with all their strengths and flaws. (And for those who have imbibed the John Adams worship of the last decade, Rakove's more nuanced account will be a particularly useful elixir.) If you've always wanted to know something more about the revolutionary generation and its challenges than the cartoon versions offered by our politics and popular culture, Rakove's Revolutionaries is the perfect place to start.
March 24, 2022
Brilliant. Subtle. Entertaining. Human. Makes one appreciate how remarkable it is that we have this country and how lucky we are that we haven’t destroyed it yet.
February 4, 2022
Finding some surprising suggestions here.
• That without the Boston Tea Party the Revolution might never have occurred. I rather suspect the underlying issues regarding taxation and representation were too great for that to be true.
• That the founders were a remarkable group. I would say that while several had considerable talent, it was the crisis that gave rise to them. When subsequent crises have arisen, others with similar levels of talent have also appeared. So in the long view, not so remarkable.
Very interesting to read of the predictions of Edmund Burke, who as early as 1774 presented the several reasons why coercion as used against the Americans would inevitably fail.
An unexpected bonus: a mini-biography of George Mason.
States that Benjamin Franklin was the most acclaimed American to visit Paris until JFK accompanied his wife there. Hold on, no memory of a guy called Lindbergh?
• That without the Boston Tea Party the Revolution might never have occurred. I rather suspect the underlying issues regarding taxation and representation were too great for that to be true.
• That the founders were a remarkable group. I would say that while several had considerable talent, it was the crisis that gave rise to them. When subsequent crises have arisen, others with similar levels of talent have also appeared. So in the long view, not so remarkable.
Very interesting to read of the predictions of Edmund Burke, who as early as 1774 presented the several reasons why coercion as used against the Americans would inevitably fail.
An unexpected bonus: a mini-biography of George Mason.
States that Benjamin Franklin was the most acclaimed American to visit Paris until JFK accompanied his wife there. Hold on, no memory of a guy called Lindbergh?
July 26, 2023
If there was ever a history book where the author flaunts the details that he discovered while doing research - this book would be it. The most disappointing part about this book has to do with the details about familial and ancestral relations which causes your eyelids to slowly close, and the book to drop on the floor, and in no time you're sleeping and dreaming about reading a better history book like 1861.
June 8, 2013
I enjoyed this for the most part. The author showed how many of the American founders were not at all what we'd now think of revolutionaries before the war. Though there were some radicals like Samuel Adams and some extremist in Boston, most Americans were not looking for independence from their mother country. It was only after the over-the-top and harsh response of Great Britain to the Boston Tea Party, that many moderates felt thrust into politics, war, diplomacy and the forming of a new constitution. Rakove spends time on several men of the time, giving us a taste of their personality and ideas and the different reasons each had for becoming revolutionaries. I liked that Rakove touches a little on some of the ideas circulating at the time, like those of Locke and Montesquieu. It wasn't just rebellious and wealthy land owners with ambition, who didn't want to pay taxes, much more was going on. Oh and if King George didn't respond the way he did, heck we'd likely be like Canada, still having a Queen! I did learn somethings like how there were some contradictions in laws of England (well know due to Blackstone), many Colonist ended up emphasizing "no taxation without representation" and yet many in England insisted on the absolute power of the parliament. Both sides of the conflict felt the law was their side.
I didn't think Rakove treatment of Jefferson was completely fair, for one the DNA testing didn't absolutely prove Thomas Jefferson to be the father of Sally's child, yet that Jefferson made Sally his concubine is continually propagated as fact by these historians and this irritates me. Another thing is Rakove doesn't mention that Jefferson tried to free his slaves, but Virgina state law forbade it. I don't think his stab at Jefferson was correct either, as if he was being hypocritical when writing in the original draft of the Declaration of Independence, that one of the offenses they had against the King his demanding slaves brought to America, despite all Colonist request that Britain stop the slave trade to America. But yeah, with that aside, he is not completely out of line towards Jefferson and shows some respect to him and the complexity of his situation. Jefferson was indeed a man of contradictions.
Oh and how I utterly loath Alexander Hamilton! I just feel Hamilton is the villain in every American history book I read, even when the author tries to paint him in a good light. Thank goodness America survived his Machiavellian philosophy and intentions.
I didn't think Rakove treatment of Jefferson was completely fair, for one the DNA testing didn't absolutely prove Thomas Jefferson to be the father of Sally's child, yet that Jefferson made Sally his concubine is continually propagated as fact by these historians and this irritates me. Another thing is Rakove doesn't mention that Jefferson tried to free his slaves, but Virgina state law forbade it. I don't think his stab at Jefferson was correct either, as if he was being hypocritical when writing in the original draft of the Declaration of Independence, that one of the offenses they had against the King his demanding slaves brought to America, despite all Colonist request that Britain stop the slave trade to America. But yeah, with that aside, he is not completely out of line towards Jefferson and shows some respect to him and the complexity of his situation. Jefferson was indeed a man of contradictions.
Oh and how I utterly loath Alexander Hamilton! I just feel Hamilton is the villain in every American history book I read, even when the author tries to paint him in a good light. Thank goodness America survived his Machiavellian philosophy and intentions.
January 12, 2024
Revolutionaries tells the story of America’s Independence as a collection of short biographies of what I imagine are their main protagonists. If I am so vague and disrespectful it is because I am probably not the target audience of this book: I know very little about the period covered here, and what I remember comes from listening to Jack Rakove’s lectures years ago. So, excuse me if as an ignorant foreigner I say this is a great book.
The two main ideas I got from it are that: 1) The Founding Fathers here mentioned were not the semi-divine wigged gentlemen I imagined them—or I thought some people imagined them—to be, but very real humans, with opposing views of what the country should be. 2) Exception made of Sam Adams, they had very little to do with 20th century revolutionaries of a different political persuasion. While many were well read in the political theories of the time, none were trained revolutionaries. Although for Rakove Independence was no accident, it was neither a historical necessity. He suggests things could have been different, not only in July of 76, but at many later stages.
If this book might do something to demythicize certain figures—I cannot really say whether that is the case—it does not make the Revolution any less unique, or any less important. Quite the contrary: the uncertainties experienced by collective and individual Americans through the process makes it even more remarkable. It also makes it a mess. I doubt this book was intended as a primer on the American Independence and because of that, readers like me might feel a bit lost at times. However, it has made clear to me this is a complex subject with very few clean cut explanations. I am not much for tradition for the sake of tradition, but this book has made obvious to me why one should be very well read before starting a sentence with “The Founding Fathers intended…” It has also made it clear why that still matters beyond academic circles. I might still find strange that the US has a 200-year Constitution, but after reading this book, it is less surprising. I guess if really want to understand America, or at the very least my American wife, I am up for a lot of revolutionary reading.
Next stop: Miracle at Philadelphia.
The two main ideas I got from it are that: 1) The Founding Fathers here mentioned were not the semi-divine wigged gentlemen I imagined them—or I thought some people imagined them—to be, but very real humans, with opposing views of what the country should be. 2) Exception made of Sam Adams, they had very little to do with 20th century revolutionaries of a different political persuasion. While many were well read in the political theories of the time, none were trained revolutionaries. Although for Rakove Independence was no accident, it was neither a historical necessity. He suggests things could have been different, not only in July of 76, but at many later stages.
If this book might do something to demythicize certain figures—I cannot really say whether that is the case—it does not make the Revolution any less unique, or any less important. Quite the contrary: the uncertainties experienced by collective and individual Americans through the process makes it even more remarkable. It also makes it a mess. I doubt this book was intended as a primer on the American Independence and because of that, readers like me might feel a bit lost at times. However, it has made clear to me this is a complex subject with very few clean cut explanations. I am not much for tradition for the sake of tradition, but this book has made obvious to me why one should be very well read before starting a sentence with “The Founding Fathers intended…” It has also made it clear why that still matters beyond academic circles. I might still find strange that the US has a 200-year Constitution, but after reading this book, it is less surprising. I guess if really want to understand America, or at the very least my American wife, I am up for a lot of revolutionary reading.
Next stop: Miracle at Philadelphia.
July 4, 2010
The key distinction of Rakove's approach is to examine how the Revolutionary generation became revolutionaries. With the probable exception of Samuel Adams, these were not men who set out to start a war or declare independence. Though they all saw themselves as "Americans"--a key factor to their eventual choices, they also all considered themselves as subjects of the British King and they did not seek to change that, until they faced the intransigence of the British government and its heavy-handed responses to the Boston Tea Party and related events. Many of them did not seek to be public servants--but felt compelled to step forward and serve when extraordinary times demanded it.
Rakove sheds light on several of the secondary, less-known Founders, including Henry Laurens, Robert Morris, John Dickinson, and John Jay, while also spending time on the greater personages such as Washington, Adams, and Jefferson. He emphasizes that each of these men applied their talents and their personal strengths in unique ways that served America well at her birth (as example: the lawyerly approach of John Jay to negotiating the final peace treaty).
A great book for the July 4th Holiday weekend.
P.S. And after reading this, more than ever, James Madison is my hero. The greatest political genius ever.
Rakove sheds light on several of the secondary, less-known Founders, including Henry Laurens, Robert Morris, John Dickinson, and John Jay, while also spending time on the greater personages such as Washington, Adams, and Jefferson. He emphasizes that each of these men applied their talents and their personal strengths in unique ways that served America well at her birth (as example: the lawyerly approach of John Jay to negotiating the final peace treaty).
A great book for the July 4th Holiday weekend.
P.S. And after reading this, more than ever, James Madison is my hero. The greatest political genius ever.
August 3, 2010
This book should be required reading in American history courses at the high school level, as well as in civics and political science courses (Do they still teach Civics in grade school?) Rakove's analysis of "The Founding Fathers" is nuanced and extremely well written. For those who have studied American history at the college level, the facts he presents are probably old hat, but he makes such perceptive correlations between the events of the Revolution/Early Federal period and the political debates in modern day America, that any reader will gain a great deal of insight from time spent with this volume. At least, one will no longer be able to call on the "authority" of "the Fathers" to support his or her own half-baked political opinions. Rakove shows us that the men who served as midwives for the USA were far too diverse, their political opinions far too amorphous, too human to be encapsulated in any declaration or constitution.
November 18, 2017
Although fewer than 500 pages, this book has more cogent analysis and understanding of its subjects than most books do in twice as many pages. Racove's characterization of the relationship between Jefferson, Madison, and Hamilton was the highpoint in the book for me. Without taking sides
(as Ron Chernow's book did), the complicated interactions between the three are well explained and the reader takes away a greater understanding of the three men who were so important in creating our government. In referring to Madison, Racove posits "One could never say of him what he later said of Jefferson that he had the habit 'as in others of great genius of expressing in strong and round terms, impressions of the moment,' " For me, those words captured the major difference between the way Madison's and Jefferson's minds worked.
If I could give this book more than 5 stars, I would do it. I highly recommend it.
(as Ron Chernow's book did), the complicated interactions between the three are well explained and the reader takes away a greater understanding of the three men who were so important in creating our government. In referring to Madison, Racove posits "One could never say of him what he later said of Jefferson that he had the habit 'as in others of great genius of expressing in strong and round terms, impressions of the moment,' " For me, those words captured the major difference between the way Madison's and Jefferson's minds worked.
If I could give this book more than 5 stars, I would do it. I highly recommend it.
July 9, 2016
Great research material. A good rich volume of revolutionary characters.
August 3, 2017
Verdict: Revolutionaries was incredibly informative, had insightful views, made an honest reflection on the American forefathers, contained sometimes difficult language, but was often quite boring.
The premise of this book is more or less how the men of the American Revolution transformed and how their intellectual ideas were formed following the moral and political dilemmas of their day. It seems that each individual covered extensively was given at least some fair shot about who they were and why they believed what they did (these include men such as Samuel Adams, John Adams, John Dickinson, Henry/John Laurens, Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and others). The extreme thoughtfulness that went into giving a perspective from their worldview is commendable.
At first, I didn't care for the book itself. One of my initial chief complaints is that there are very few in text references or notes - doing little for the effort of citation. However, as I progressed passed the first fifty pages or so, I notice that I am immediately bombarded with personal and professional letters, speech quotes, and the like for the entirety of the remaining book. That said, deciphering the political language of 1760-1793 can get quite cumbersome. I found that every few pages I would get somewhat burned out trying to absorb the sheer amount of information contained within these pages. Unfortunately, my constant need to pause and reflect drew out the length of time it took me to finish this volume (about 20 days - much longer than the average). Regardless, the amount of information and the letters contained within are really what made the book valuable, albeit regularly very uninteresting.
At least one chapter I found very unnecessary to the overall content of the book ("vain liberators"). That is, one that describes Henry and John Laurens and their roles they played toward the question of: What is American liberty, really? However, by the end of the chapter I understood quite well its relevance and appreciated a very overlooked insight. Jack Rakove at the end of the chapter explains at the very end of it why it was included, but by the time I got to that point, I no longer felt the explanation was necessary. From that point forward I had to trust that the narrative should be beyond my timid reproach. Reading that mindset produced both satisfaction and disappointment at different points.
I do feel a bit better about revolutionary perspective after having read this book. I just wish it took a break from the thoroughly academic and frankly dry writing style every now and again. It is, after the only thing that convinces me not to add this book to a favorite's list.
The premise of this book is more or less how the men of the American Revolution transformed and how their intellectual ideas were formed following the moral and political dilemmas of their day. It seems that each individual covered extensively was given at least some fair shot about who they were and why they believed what they did (these include men such as Samuel Adams, John Adams, John Dickinson, Henry/John Laurens, Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and others). The extreme thoughtfulness that went into giving a perspective from their worldview is commendable.
At first, I didn't care for the book itself. One of my initial chief complaints is that there are very few in text references or notes - doing little for the effort of citation. However, as I progressed passed the first fifty pages or so, I notice that I am immediately bombarded with personal and professional letters, speech quotes, and the like for the entirety of the remaining book. That said, deciphering the political language of 1760-1793 can get quite cumbersome. I found that every few pages I would get somewhat burned out trying to absorb the sheer amount of information contained within these pages. Unfortunately, my constant need to pause and reflect drew out the length of time it took me to finish this volume (about 20 days - much longer than the average). Regardless, the amount of information and the letters contained within are really what made the book valuable, albeit regularly very uninteresting.
At least one chapter I found very unnecessary to the overall content of the book ("vain liberators"). That is, one that describes Henry and John Laurens and their roles they played toward the question of: What is American liberty, really? However, by the end of the chapter I understood quite well its relevance and appreciated a very overlooked insight. Jack Rakove at the end of the chapter explains at the very end of it why it was included, but by the time I got to that point, I no longer felt the explanation was necessary. From that point forward I had to trust that the narrative should be beyond my timid reproach. Reading that mindset produced both satisfaction and disappointment at different points.
I do feel a bit better about revolutionary perspective after having read this book. I just wish it took a break from the thoroughly academic and frankly dry writing style every now and again. It is, after the only thing that convinces me not to add this book to a favorite's list.
July 13, 2022
A very different account of the putting together of the American system of government. This is the sort of stuff your high school American History (if you had such a class) textbook glossed over, and it’s fascinating to see, in such detail, how it all came together. Oh sure, there’s some mention of Washington the general, and the various battles, and the multitude of issues the British Empire was facing at the same time, but that’s not where the heart of this book lies.
I suppose I never really realized there was a functioning American government meeting continuously since the beginning skirmishes at Concord and Lexington, tasked with finding a way to bring these thirteen very different colonies together as a whole. And although originally it wasn’t much more than a means of supplying and directing the rebel rag tail army, the colonists quickly realized that they had to reach out to other nations to find legitimacy and recognition. And what a better way to start than to send out Benjamin Franklin to Paris, John Jay to Madrid, and John Adams to the Netherlands, all three countries traditionally antagonistic to Britain. And since the three Americans couldn’t stand being together in the same room very long, this worked out well for all concerned.
Meanwhile, back at home, the war was won (Britain decided defending sugar was a better bet than tobacco), and the original Articles of Confederation were proving to be ungainly and not conducive to binding the states together. Enter James Madison, the ultimate policy wonk. He researched all the federal government systems going back to the Romans, trying to figure out a way to balance the large states against the small ones, the agricultural (i.e. slave-owning) states against the manufacturing ones, and even the states that needed to export against those that didn’t. He didn’t get everything he had hoped for (sure wish he didn’t have to concede on the Senate) but a considerable part of it. The one item there was no argument on whatsoever was no established government sponsored religion. That nonsense was right out the door - the ex-colonists knew all too well where that led. Also a shout out to Alexander Hamilton for his brilliant realization that a functioning nation needs two things - a national army and a national bank/currency, and fought to make that happen.
So a challenging read that goes deep into the weeds of creating a government, but very illuminating.
I suppose I never really realized there was a functioning American government meeting continuously since the beginning skirmishes at Concord and Lexington, tasked with finding a way to bring these thirteen very different colonies together as a whole. And although originally it wasn’t much more than a means of supplying and directing the rebel rag tail army, the colonists quickly realized that they had to reach out to other nations to find legitimacy and recognition. And what a better way to start than to send out Benjamin Franklin to Paris, John Jay to Madrid, and John Adams to the Netherlands, all three countries traditionally antagonistic to Britain. And since the three Americans couldn’t stand being together in the same room very long, this worked out well for all concerned.
Meanwhile, back at home, the war was won (Britain decided defending sugar was a better bet than tobacco), and the original Articles of Confederation were proving to be ungainly and not conducive to binding the states together. Enter James Madison, the ultimate policy wonk. He researched all the federal government systems going back to the Romans, trying to figure out a way to balance the large states against the small ones, the agricultural (i.e. slave-owning) states against the manufacturing ones, and even the states that needed to export against those that didn’t. He didn’t get everything he had hoped for (sure wish he didn’t have to concede on the Senate) but a considerable part of it. The one item there was no argument on whatsoever was no established government sponsored religion. That nonsense was right out the door - the ex-colonists knew all too well where that led. Also a shout out to Alexander Hamilton for his brilliant realization that a functioning nation needs two things - a national army and a national bank/currency, and fought to make that happen.
So a challenging read that goes deep into the weeds of creating a government, but very illuminating.
November 10, 2019
A solid history with a unique focus. Instead of focusing on specific events, or relating a strict chronological move through the revolutionary period, Rakove relates the particular skills, backgrounds, histories, and major achievements of Benjamin Franklin, John Jay, Dickinson, Robert Morris, Samuel Adams, George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison and Alexander Hamilton by focusing on one (or a handful) of their singular achievements as demonstrative of how they developed into the revolutionaries they became. It's clearly an exercise in brief collective biography, and it's well-written, well-researched, and entertaining. While I didn't enjoy it as much as the seminal single-personality biographies such as Chernow's Alexander Hamilton and Washington,, McCullough's John Adams, Ellis' His Excellency, George Washington, or Isaacson's Benjamin Franklin: An American Life, this is a personal preference for the completeness of that other biographical approach. Rakove is politically astute, historically, accurate, and worthy of serious study.
March 7, 2021
Revolutionaries provides a panoramic view of events and people who helped frame this nation and the circumstances surrounding them. Stories from Washington, Franklin, Dickinson, John and Samuel Adam's, Jefferson, Hamilton, and others are highlighted to show their contributions as revolutionary leaders in the birth of independence and succession from Great Britain.
While this book has the breadth, it doesnt have the depth. The first few chapters were hard to read. They felt to broad. The later chapters were easier to navigate and understand. There is a lot of writing per page and for most of the time the writing is dry and hard to get through.
Overall, I feel reading books that provide more depth into the subjects that interest you would be preferable to this book.
While this book has the breadth, it doesnt have the depth. The first few chapters were hard to read. They felt to broad. The later chapters were easier to navigate and understand. There is a lot of writing per page and for most of the time the writing is dry and hard to get through.
Overall, I feel reading books that provide more depth into the subjects that interest you would be preferable to this book.
March 7, 2019
Maybe it's just me, but I found it difficult at times to read. The words just didn't flow smoothly for me, and there were a few added details that left me wondering why they were even mentioned, because none had anything to do with the revolution itself. The details seemed to have been awkwardly added in without further explanation of why it was worth mentioning or how it was relevant to the paragraph being read. They were interesting, though. I found myself wanting to know more about those tidbits than the story being told at hand. You'll recognize what I'm talking about when you read it for yourself. Lol 😉
June 7, 2018
I'm not sure that one can ever get too much good American history. I thought the element of the "American Invention" was a nice touch in the title, and wonder if perhaps "invent" might not have been a better focus word than "revolt," to capture the author's overarching theme. It seemed to me that the Revolutionary War served to punctuate the "revolutionary" part of the overall "invention." The writing of the Constitution, followed by the subsequent struggles to get the amendments that became our Bill of Rights included, make for a stirring memoir of the nation's youth. Good stuff.
June 10, 2020
One of the best books I've read at digging into the motivations and objectives of the founding generation. The structure leaves the chronology pretty muddled, and would probably make it extremely hard to follow if you weren't already pretty familiar with the course of events. So wouldn't recommend as a first dig into the period. But if you're already on stable ground, this is a very nice addition.
June 5, 2021
The book answers the questions like: "who were the revolutionaries?", "what were they alike?", "how they formed their views". Together with a short remind how was the revolution forming. It reads little bit like a novel, but still only transitory from a nice historical textbook. Filled with details of personal life, impressions of travels to Europe and a general overview of the big picture of the revolution. Somehow it could be read as a scenario to a film. Perfect.
July 5, 2017
Elegant study of the handful of men who made the American Revolution. It covers the period from 1775 through 1790; it does this through a series of mini biographies of the leading players. It is essentially an intellectual history of the transition from Independence to Constitution. The analysis is brilliant if pedantic. Rakove is an academic speaking to other academics.
August 9, 2017
There is a lot of great information hidden in the pages of this book. Unfortunately, it's incredibly dense. Another issue I had with it is that it is written in a roundabout way. The author clearly wanted to pack as much information as he could into the book, but in doing so, lost any form of structural integrity.
July 19, 2022
If you want to know the "in depth" background on this period of American history, this IS the book for you! Meticulously researched and drawing on multiple perspectives, Rakove examines the private correspondence and public lives of those we have come to revere. A dense read, not to be breezed through- for the serious historican and Constitutional scholar.
December 27, 2023
This is a wonderful book about some of our founding fathers that aren't discussed a lot, yet have played a critical role in the formation of our country. Rakove dive into their development into adults and the circumstances that led to their rising into the small group of dedicated individuals who poured their heart and soul into forming America. Well worth the read.
December 29, 2018
Audio book read by Bronson Pinchot was well done. Lots of information about many players in the War for Independence. John Dickinson and Henry and Jack Laurens became much more fleshed out. 15 CDs was a lot
March 2, 2020
Excellent
Excellent insight into the roots and beginning of the American experiment of our republic . The wrestling and contentions of our founding fathers . Along with the rudiments and environment that brought the nation into being .
Excellent insight into the roots and beginning of the American experiment of our republic . The wrestling and contentions of our founding fathers . Along with the rudiments and environment that brought the nation into being .
Displaying 1 - 30 of 96 reviews