What do you think?
Rate this book
American Heroes: Profiles of Men and Women Who Shaped Early America
"A wise, humane and beautifully written book." ―Bret Stephens, Wall Street Journal From the best-selling author of Benjamin Franklin comes this remarkable work that will help redefine our notion of American heroism. Americans have long been obsessed with their heroes, but the men and women dramatically portrayed here are not celebrated for the typical banal reasons contained in Founding Fathers hagiography. Effortlessly challenging those who persist in revering the American history status quo and its tropes and falsehoods, Morgan, now ninety-three, continues to believe that the past is just not the way it seems.
298 pages, Paperback
First published May 18, 2009
37 people are currently reading
345 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 36 reviews
June 5, 2017
This is one of those books where they came up with a title that they thought would sell books, and didn't care that it doesn't really describe the book. This is not a collection of profiles about "American Heroes"; it is a collection of essays on American history (some of these are profiles, some are not). I really enjoyed some of these essays, the one on the Salem Witch trials and the profile of Franklin, for example, but others were dull.
October 11, 2019
The prologue was really worrisome to me. I was afraid that the whole book would be like it, with him bouncing around from topic to topic, mentioning one person and that leading to another with no warning. He seems to assume that we know everything he's talking about already which makes for a really confused reader. This is not for the faint of heart. Clearly someone who isn't a history major and/or buff shouldn't read this because there is no way to keep up. Whether it was explorers from the 1500s, Puritans, Washington and Franklin, Salem Witch Trials, etc., he assumed you knew it.
It was really interesting to learn that people placed such an importance on the old writings, identifying or trying to identify new species of animals and plants based on the old writers of Europe. They judged what America would be like and what it should be based on old writings.
Morgan said that Columbus wasn't one of his heroes because of his treatment of the natives and that was good to hear. He said the Indians were more monastic with their way of life, not capturing material things and helping neighbors, whereas the really "religious" groups who claimed to be Christians were the exact opposite. They coveted material wealth and treated Indians abominably. Indians had the right qualities without "civilization" and Christianity and it upset the Europeans and Spanish.
I was shocked by how dangerous he portrayed libraries to be, how reading breeds heresy. I've never thought of someone having dangerous ideas from reading certain works. But it does also encourage independent thought and spark change, so he ended the chapter by saving he hoped libraries stayed dangerous for years to come.
I was so surprised that anthropologists found more variation in head shape, jaw length, skin color, etc. between Indians than they did in white people. The differences suggest they didn't come over from Asia at the same time or from the same place. Morgan said there's no such thing as "the" American Indian but they all did have one thing in common: they refused to be absorbed into the European culture.
Indians were willing to listen to stories of the English God but they didn't care about the rewards or punishments He meted out. The Cherokees felt that everyone was free to think for themselves and that's why there was great diversity of religion between them. They thought they had to civilize the Indians before they would convert to Christianity, and thought college would do that. But when they got boys in college, they would skip classes to go in the hills.
The French excelled at marrying Indian women. They were so eager for French husbands that they jilted the Indian men. The English government offered 10 pounds and 50 acres town who married Indian women or to Indian women who married Englishmen but few did. When Englishmen traveled with Indians on trading, surveying, or hunting expeditions, they were offered the prettiest maidens. When a man married a woman he seemed devoted to her and her family and that way of life and didn't desire to be among the English.
Even though they adopted guns, cloth, and items into their way of life, they didn't fully assimilate into white culture.
Indians thought white men who so discontented and uneasy with the world that it was a wonder they didn't go out of it. The Indians didn't fight or use bad language and name-calling with each other. They respected each other and didn't have long conversations. Whites would get unnerved by their silence. They would speak so low out of courtesy and Europeans had trouble hearing them, and Europeans would speak so loudly that Indians would ask if they thought they were deaf. They never raised their voice even when angry.
If any Indian violated their customs, the treatment was intended to shame them into reform and not force them. Sarcasm seemed to be a good method, such as commending a thief for their honesty or praising the courage of someone who ran in battle.
Europeans thought the biggest gift to give the Indians was Christianity. They deemed the Indians lazy from the start, even though the wealthy whites lived a life of pleasure themselves. Indians were careless about wealth, unimpressed by it and actually wanting to avoid it. They valued the person and their abilities to hunt and be a warrior. A chief had to give away all his possessions and if he was thought to be selfish he would lose his authority.
It's amazing that Robert Rogers wrote about the Indians that their principles are that every man is free and independent and no one has the right to take that away from them, 11 years before the Declaration of Independence.
I was uncorked table when Morgan called Indians incorrigible, said "we" hated them because they exemplified the Christian way of life better than us, and they fit the values of the Declaration of Independence better than we do. He said "we" don't want to be like them with a thousand petty republics, no authority to make us behave, or to abandon our riches, and "we're" irritated by them who exhibit our values better. "We do not have room for such incorrigible individualists within our civilization." But he said it would be damaged beyond repair if we didn't admire their dignity and diversity more than they had reason to admire us. I couldn't believe he said these things!
I was severely uncomfortable reading the section about Puritans and sex. Attempted rape scenarios that were documented, men having maids sleep with them in their bed in a roomful of people, servants sneaking in and out of each other's houses to have sex. There was a law that said a woman could announce the father of her child and get support from the father, which caused girls to abuse it. There are cases where girls admitted they would lie and claim a wealthy man was the father just to get money.
The story of the wealthy girl who was duped into marrying an impotent man by his friend who came to earn her affections by bringing her gold and gifts for him, was like something out of a really bad movie. The man had her marry the first man who turned out to be incapable of performing and wasn't a true husband for her, so she divorced him. Then later the friend got them back together again and convinced her the man was fixed and took treatments to be able to perform. It turned out he was still impotent and the man had been living in her family home the whole time, tricked her into marrying the man and signing over all her property to her husband. Her husband died, she found the man living in her family home, but, the two kids she had weren't her husbands, they were another man's because she'd never had sex with her husband...I got done with the chapter and wondered how he hell this story came into a book called American Heroes. Who's the hero?!
It took so long to get to the Salem witch trials story and then he said he wasn't going to talk about the tension between Salem Village and Salem town and I really wanted to know that.
It made me so mad to know that 5 years after the executions of the Salem witch trials, the court had a day of fasting to atone for what they had done. The judges asked for forgiveness from God for their part and had guilt for the innocent. Morgan praised the community because one judge tried to shoulder all the blame but everyone fasted in admittance of their wrongdoing.
I was shocked at the info of Quakers. They confronted the church and religious authorities, refused to take their hats off or use titles to their betters, some came to church naked. They claimed they were a direct revelation from God, that they had the light that the apostles received from Jesus. They didn't believe Jesus' death would redeem man's sins.
The chapter on William Penn was so long. I was thoroughly sick of him and the whole subject of the Quakers and the Puritans.
He praised Washington and Franklin for their ability to know when to not act, even when everyone else wanted them to. Franklin had to contend with state militias putting themselves above the continental army and petitioning Europeans for money for themselves when Franklin was trying to raise money for the whole army. Washington trying to keep the army together because they were ill fed, ill clothed, ill armed, and ill housed, and enlistments were running out. State militias were paying 20-30+ dollars more service and being loyal to Washington meant less pay for a longer service. Their easygoing manners were mistaken for inactivity, laziness, and irresponsibility. Washington was seen as timid and incompetent as a general because he didn't start battles he couldn't win and waited for those he could win.
I liked learning about Franklin traveling to England on behalf of the continent, to get them to stop taxing the colonists. He urged the colonists to have patience and not engage in behavior that would hurt their cause. But the lords in England didn't understand and so Franklin knew that only independence would win their goal. He went to France as an envoy and refused to accept any concessions from Britain.
Parliament wanted to tax the colonists but they didn't want to be taxed by a body that they weren't represented in. England said they were represented--by men they didn't even know, in England who had been voted on there. The colonists felt that they should be represented by someone who they had elected.
It was such a strange and shocking notion that he said the government is a fiction and it's asking people to suspend their disbelief in order to accept a representative. That was the basis of our American government, the colonists first accepting the large-scale representation. The assembly was elected by popular votes and these were national representatives instead of the failing state governments. Everyone had to accept being a nation and come together for one purpose.
It's amazing that the Constitution is the most durable government by a major power in the world.
This wasn’t what I expected at all and I was so disappointed. It was scholarly and he would go on and on about the topics, but not the details I expected. He knew all about these times in history and he assumed we're all historians like him and had already known all of this too. Most of it I had no idea what he was talking about and he didn't take the time to explain. This is an odd cast of characters with an unconventional definition of a hero. I didn’t enjoy the people he wrote about and didn’t find most of them to be heroic. The stories weren’t good, usually had a bad ending, and I’ll be giving this back to the bookstore because I would never read this again.
It was really interesting to learn that people placed such an importance on the old writings, identifying or trying to identify new species of animals and plants based on the old writers of Europe. They judged what America would be like and what it should be based on old writings.
Morgan said that Columbus wasn't one of his heroes because of his treatment of the natives and that was good to hear. He said the Indians were more monastic with their way of life, not capturing material things and helping neighbors, whereas the really "religious" groups who claimed to be Christians were the exact opposite. They coveted material wealth and treated Indians abominably. Indians had the right qualities without "civilization" and Christianity and it upset the Europeans and Spanish.
I was shocked by how dangerous he portrayed libraries to be, how reading breeds heresy. I've never thought of someone having dangerous ideas from reading certain works. But it does also encourage independent thought and spark change, so he ended the chapter by saving he hoped libraries stayed dangerous for years to come.
I was so surprised that anthropologists found more variation in head shape, jaw length, skin color, etc. between Indians than they did in white people. The differences suggest they didn't come over from Asia at the same time or from the same place. Morgan said there's no such thing as "the" American Indian but they all did have one thing in common: they refused to be absorbed into the European culture.
Indians were willing to listen to stories of the English God but they didn't care about the rewards or punishments He meted out. The Cherokees felt that everyone was free to think for themselves and that's why there was great diversity of religion between them. They thought they had to civilize the Indians before they would convert to Christianity, and thought college would do that. But when they got boys in college, they would skip classes to go in the hills.
The French excelled at marrying Indian women. They were so eager for French husbands that they jilted the Indian men. The English government offered 10 pounds and 50 acres town who married Indian women or to Indian women who married Englishmen but few did. When Englishmen traveled with Indians on trading, surveying, or hunting expeditions, they were offered the prettiest maidens. When a man married a woman he seemed devoted to her and her family and that way of life and didn't desire to be among the English.
Even though they adopted guns, cloth, and items into their way of life, they didn't fully assimilate into white culture.
Indians thought white men who so discontented and uneasy with the world that it was a wonder they didn't go out of it. The Indians didn't fight or use bad language and name-calling with each other. They respected each other and didn't have long conversations. Whites would get unnerved by their silence. They would speak so low out of courtesy and Europeans had trouble hearing them, and Europeans would speak so loudly that Indians would ask if they thought they were deaf. They never raised their voice even when angry.
If any Indian violated their customs, the treatment was intended to shame them into reform and not force them. Sarcasm seemed to be a good method, such as commending a thief for their honesty or praising the courage of someone who ran in battle.
Europeans thought the biggest gift to give the Indians was Christianity. They deemed the Indians lazy from the start, even though the wealthy whites lived a life of pleasure themselves. Indians were careless about wealth, unimpressed by it and actually wanting to avoid it. They valued the person and their abilities to hunt and be a warrior. A chief had to give away all his possessions and if he was thought to be selfish he would lose his authority.
It's amazing that Robert Rogers wrote about the Indians that their principles are that every man is free and independent and no one has the right to take that away from them, 11 years before the Declaration of Independence.
I was uncorked table when Morgan called Indians incorrigible, said "we" hated them because they exemplified the Christian way of life better than us, and they fit the values of the Declaration of Independence better than we do. He said "we" don't want to be like them with a thousand petty republics, no authority to make us behave, or to abandon our riches, and "we're" irritated by them who exhibit our values better. "We do not have room for such incorrigible individualists within our civilization." But he said it would be damaged beyond repair if we didn't admire their dignity and diversity more than they had reason to admire us. I couldn't believe he said these things!
I was severely uncomfortable reading the section about Puritans and sex. Attempted rape scenarios that were documented, men having maids sleep with them in their bed in a roomful of people, servants sneaking in and out of each other's houses to have sex. There was a law that said a woman could announce the father of her child and get support from the father, which caused girls to abuse it. There are cases where girls admitted they would lie and claim a wealthy man was the father just to get money.
The story of the wealthy girl who was duped into marrying an impotent man by his friend who came to earn her affections by bringing her gold and gifts for him, was like something out of a really bad movie. The man had her marry the first man who turned out to be incapable of performing and wasn't a true husband for her, so she divorced him. Then later the friend got them back together again and convinced her the man was fixed and took treatments to be able to perform. It turned out he was still impotent and the man had been living in her family home the whole time, tricked her into marrying the man and signing over all her property to her husband. Her husband died, she found the man living in her family home, but, the two kids she had weren't her husbands, they were another man's because she'd never had sex with her husband...I got done with the chapter and wondered how he hell this story came into a book called American Heroes. Who's the hero?!
It took so long to get to the Salem witch trials story and then he said he wasn't going to talk about the tension between Salem Village and Salem town and I really wanted to know that.
It made me so mad to know that 5 years after the executions of the Salem witch trials, the court had a day of fasting to atone for what they had done. The judges asked for forgiveness from God for their part and had guilt for the innocent. Morgan praised the community because one judge tried to shoulder all the blame but everyone fasted in admittance of their wrongdoing.
I was shocked at the info of Quakers. They confronted the church and religious authorities, refused to take their hats off or use titles to their betters, some came to church naked. They claimed they were a direct revelation from God, that they had the light that the apostles received from Jesus. They didn't believe Jesus' death would redeem man's sins.
The chapter on William Penn was so long. I was thoroughly sick of him and the whole subject of the Quakers and the Puritans.
He praised Washington and Franklin for their ability to know when to not act, even when everyone else wanted them to. Franklin had to contend with state militias putting themselves above the continental army and petitioning Europeans for money for themselves when Franklin was trying to raise money for the whole army. Washington trying to keep the army together because they were ill fed, ill clothed, ill armed, and ill housed, and enlistments were running out. State militias were paying 20-30+ dollars more service and being loyal to Washington meant less pay for a longer service. Their easygoing manners were mistaken for inactivity, laziness, and irresponsibility. Washington was seen as timid and incompetent as a general because he didn't start battles he couldn't win and waited for those he could win.
I liked learning about Franklin traveling to England on behalf of the continent, to get them to stop taxing the colonists. He urged the colonists to have patience and not engage in behavior that would hurt their cause. But the lords in England didn't understand and so Franklin knew that only independence would win their goal. He went to France as an envoy and refused to accept any concessions from Britain.
Parliament wanted to tax the colonists but they didn't want to be taxed by a body that they weren't represented in. England said they were represented--by men they didn't even know, in England who had been voted on there. The colonists felt that they should be represented by someone who they had elected.
It was such a strange and shocking notion that he said the government is a fiction and it's asking people to suspend their disbelief in order to accept a representative. That was the basis of our American government, the colonists first accepting the large-scale representation. The assembly was elected by popular votes and these were national representatives instead of the failing state governments. Everyone had to accept being a nation and come together for one purpose.
It's amazing that the Constitution is the most durable government by a major power in the world.
This wasn’t what I expected at all and I was so disappointed. It was scholarly and he would go on and on about the topics, but not the details I expected. He knew all about these times in history and he assumed we're all historians like him and had already known all of this too. Most of it I had no idea what he was talking about and he didn't take the time to explain. This is an odd cast of characters with an unconventional definition of a hero. I didn’t enjoy the people he wrote about and didn’t find most of them to be heroic. The stories weren’t good, usually had a bad ending, and I’ll be giving this back to the bookstore because I would never read this again.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
September 13, 2012
What an odd little book.
The cover is misleading.
A selection of essays about or in regard to various figures in the history of the American continent - or maybe the "New World" is a better description. There seems to have been an attempt to link this collection together by an oblique definition or ancient translation of the word "Hero". While a couple may be classified as heroes and a few certainly American, and aggreeably some of the characters discussed had at least a measure of "effect" on the future of the New World, "hero" is not a description or classificaton I would consider lumping them under - "American" even less so.
I read all the essays, I suffered through some left field analysis and sometimes hard to follow recognition of principled stands taken by various early pilgrim/explorers (including "participants" in the Salem witch trials)and aside from the writings on Washington and Franklin, I have to say that - to quote a synopsis of the book - I find that I most assuredly do prefer my heros to be: ".. celebrated for the typical banal reasons contained in Founding Fathers hagiography."
If I have to choose between banal and painfully oblique, I am going for banal.
I don't think this book celebrated much of anything....I have to stop these impulse purchases.
The cover is misleading.
A selection of essays about or in regard to various figures in the history of the American continent - or maybe the "New World" is a better description. There seems to have been an attempt to link this collection together by an oblique definition or ancient translation of the word "Hero". While a couple may be classified as heroes and a few certainly American, and aggreeably some of the characters discussed had at least a measure of "effect" on the future of the New World, "hero" is not a description or classificaton I would consider lumping them under - "American" even less so.
I read all the essays, I suffered through some left field analysis and sometimes hard to follow recognition of principled stands taken by various early pilgrim/explorers (including "participants" in the Salem witch trials)and aside from the writings on Washington and Franklin, I have to say that - to quote a synopsis of the book - I find that I most assuredly do prefer my heros to be: ".. celebrated for the typical banal reasons contained in Founding Fathers hagiography."
If I have to choose between banal and painfully oblique, I am going for banal.
I don't think this book celebrated much of anything....I have to stop these impulse purchases.
November 3, 2020
I wouldn't say the title or cover are accurate, but what the content actually turned out to be was still interesting. (I mostly found it to be exploration of culture in Puritan communities, around Quakers, and surrounding the founding of the United States, respectively.)
April 10, 2018
As many other reviewers have written, the title and cover of this book do not accurately depict what this collection of essays are about. The essays generally cover the colonial period in New England, with a few sprinkled in about Washington and Franklin late in the book. The idea that the central thesis of the essays is about Heroes is also not true as the essays generally handle a topic or specific aspect of an historical person but do not focus on whether or not those action are heroic.
I enjoyed a few of the essays, but there were too many that were too narrowly focused for my tastes. I think Morgan writes well, but most of these essays were obviously written for other scholars and for academia and not for the general public (even those of us who are well-read in the time period).
I enjoyed a few of the essays, but there were too many that were too narrowly focused for my tastes. I think Morgan writes well, but most of these essays were obviously written for other scholars and for academia and not for the general public (even those of us who are well-read in the time period).
May 27, 2014
The book consists of a collection of essays, many previously published, but a few new ones as well. Morgan’s goal in putting together this book was to focus on more ordinary people, so while there are chapters discussing Ben Franklin and George Washington, the majority of chapters focus on people who are probably less well known to the population at large.
If you enjoy reading about the early history of our country then you will probably enjoy this book. It is relatively short and a fairly easy and quick read. If you want to read an interesting history book without feeling like you are giving up the next month or two of your life, then this book is for you.
If you enjoy reading about the early history of our country then you will probably enjoy this book. It is relatively short and a fairly easy and quick read. If you want to read an interesting history book without feeling like you are giving up the next month or two of your life, then this book is for you.
June 21, 2019
This collection of essays ranging from 1937 to 2005, including some previously unpublished, display the talented writing of a remarkable historian. While not all the topics are equally appealing, the essays bring to our attention the struggles of prominent & ordinary men & women. Two essays at the beginning of the collection that I think stand out are “Dangerous Books” and “The Unyielding Indian.” “Books” is a thoughtful presentation on the importance of libraries and why libraries are dangerous to those who do not like change. With “Indian,” the author provides an overview why Native Americans were not assimilated, and a thought provoking contrast between the Native lifestyle and that of the encroaching Americans. Another essay about two presidents of Yale University, “Ezra Stiles and Timothy Dwight,” was low on my interest scale, but I found worth reading because it showed the problem historians have with source material. I found myself tiring reading about the Puritans, so I was delighted when I got to the essay on William Penn (which I thought was an engaging biographical essay) followed by writings about Revolutionary leaders. In this section, “The Role of the Antifederalists” is a marvelous essay on what the Antifederalists wanted and what both sides got that shapes our government. What connects the prominent and the ordinary is that there is a line where the individuals take a stand, refusing to bow to authority or public pressure.
April 27, 2020
My sister-in-law gave me this book and a few others several year ago. It’s just been sitting on my bookshelf ever since. This year I have decided I am going to work on clearing off my bookshelf, reading every book, and then deciding to keep it or donate it.
I was not empresses by this book at all. First of all, the title is rather confusing. The title does not at all suggest that the book is a collection of essays which would have been helpful to know before I started reading the book.
Also, the author starts the book out with an essay on Christopher Columbus. I cannot stand how much credit Columbus gets for his discovery of America when in fact he was wrong about what he had actually discovered. Plus he treated all of the natives he encountered terribly. The first chapter being about Morgan’s love and admiration of Columbus should have been a hint as to what was to come.
The reason why I ultimately put the book down was because I was reading the third essay which is about Native Americans and Morgan goes so far as to say slavery is an effective way to force people into your culture. The way Morgan talks about the slavery is heartless to say the least.
Obviously since I put the book down while reading the third essay, I did not finish it. I also would not recommend this book to anyone.
I was not empresses by this book at all. First of all, the title is rather confusing. The title does not at all suggest that the book is a collection of essays which would have been helpful to know before I started reading the book.
Also, the author starts the book out with an essay on Christopher Columbus. I cannot stand how much credit Columbus gets for his discovery of America when in fact he was wrong about what he had actually discovered. Plus he treated all of the natives he encountered terribly. The first chapter being about Morgan’s love and admiration of Columbus should have been a hint as to what was to come.
The reason why I ultimately put the book down was because I was reading the third essay which is about Native Americans and Morgan goes so far as to say slavery is an effective way to force people into your culture. The way Morgan talks about the slavery is heartless to say the least.
Obviously since I put the book down while reading the third essay, I did not finish it. I also would not recommend this book to anyone.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
July 8, 2025
Disappointment is an understatement.
It's a random collection of essays written by this guy from 1948 through 2005, plus unpublished ones too. But that's not acknowledged anywhere. Did he just want to print his essays from throughout school years and his pondering? Did he take the time to write about anything of interest?
This was dry, boring, and why people dislike history so much. I love history and struggled with this.
One star because I could not give less, and he tried, maybe? Maybe his mom kept all his essays and told him how great he is and those need to be published?
It's a random collection of essays written by this guy from 1948 through 2005, plus unpublished ones too. But that's not acknowledged anywhere. Did he just want to print his essays from throughout school years and his pondering? Did he take the time to write about anything of interest?
This was dry, boring, and why people dislike history so much. I love history and struggled with this.
One star because I could not give less, and he tried, maybe? Maybe his mom kept all his essays and told him how great he is and those need to be published?
June 6, 2019
Edmund S. Morgan (1916-2013) was a giant in the field of early American history; and these seventeen essays, spanning his seventy-year career and including a few previously unpublished pieces, are his final contribution. Though I consider the title misleading and believe some of the essays tendentious, I appreciated throughout Morgan's meticulousness and confident literary style.
March 8, 2022
I bought this used for $2 so I cannot complain too much although the book was mistitled and the assortment of essays seemed completely random. Although this book idea was probably pushed by the publisher, I am glad to have been exposed to Morgan; he is brilliant.
February 24, 2025
Title is deceptive. I wouldn't call any of the people in the book heroes, with the possible exception of George Washington. Plus each essay seems to be more about ideas than the people he's writing about.
Currently reading
February 6, 2026has many useful Revolutionary lists for the professional genealogist.
Good section on impact ic War on Maryland.
My ancestry on page 206 Josiah Hoskinson Sgt, Montgomery County.
Good section on impact ic War on Maryland.
My ancestry on page 206 Josiah Hoskinson Sgt, Montgomery County.
January 23, 2023
As others have stated, the title of the book does not represent the content of the book. Some of the chapters/stories completely absorbed me while others I gave up on. “The Puritans and Sex”(Puritans understood sex as a human need, but only within marriage. Therefore, marriage was encouraged and supported with punishment for abandoning a spouse. Sex outside of marriage was condemned, but again, they understood human nature so adultera, fornication, etc was dealt with within the courts with, at times, some leniency), “The Problems of a Puritan Heiress,” “The Courage of Giles Cory and Mary Easty”(Salem Witch trials), and “Postscript: Philadelphia 1787” captivated me the most, probably because they are social history tales. Some of the chapters dealing with political history were a bit too wordy for me. Edmund Morgan is regarded as one of the most respected American historians and it is well worth perusing this collection of essays.
March 2, 2017
Morgan explains how for both the Spanish and English settlers in the New World, there was a misunderstanding as they assumed that the natives would want to live a life like the settlers, as the settles viewed their life as "better," but the culture of the natives may not have been hospitable to changing their way of life.
Morgan lauds Washington not for what he did, but for what he didn't do - he didn't veto bills just because he didn't like them, and he didn't campaign for other candidates.
Morgan also honors Franklin for not being so stuck on his own view that he was unable to broker so many compromises even if it meant he didn't get his way.
Morgan lauds Washington not for what he did, but for what he didn't do - he didn't veto bills just because he didn't like them, and he didn't campaign for other candidates.
Morgan also honors Franklin for not being so stuck on his own view that he was unable to broker so many compromises even if it meant he didn't get his way.
July 29, 2009
This is an odd little book by the well-known--and respected--historian, Edmund Morgan. This is a collection of brief essays, focusing on what the author refers to as "men and women who shaped early America."
The essays really aren't tied together, but many of these are still interesting reflections that trigger the reader's reflections about subjects covered. Subjects considered run from Christopher Columbus (and his imposition of slavery on native Americans), to the Puritans of New England (e.g., essays focus on such various topics as "The Puritans and Sex," "John Winthrop's Vision" [of the City on the Hill:], Salem witch trials), to the Quakers (and William Penn), to revolutionary leaders (an interesting comparison of Washington versus Franklin, rather flattering to both).
A couple important essays in the section on Revolutionary leaders stand out for me. One chapter focuses on a key issue in the understanding of representative democracy--the nature of representation. Morgan makes the intriguing point that representation is a "fiction," (page 225) "by which the larger fiction of popular sovereignty has been itself sustained." A fiction. . . . And with that, what of democracy as a form? That is why the chapter immediately following makes so much sense--the role of the Antifederalists, those who opposed the Constitution because of their fears that it would undermine some of the democratic impulses of the time.
Like many collections, sometimes this does not hold together too well. There are some idiosyncratic judgments by Morgan. Still, if you want to read a book that will make one reflect, this does its job well.
The essays really aren't tied together, but many of these are still interesting reflections that trigger the reader's reflections about subjects covered. Subjects considered run from Christopher Columbus (and his imposition of slavery on native Americans), to the Puritans of New England (e.g., essays focus on such various topics as "The Puritans and Sex," "John Winthrop's Vision" [of the City on the Hill:], Salem witch trials), to the Quakers (and William Penn), to revolutionary leaders (an interesting comparison of Washington versus Franklin, rather flattering to both).
A couple important essays in the section on Revolutionary leaders stand out for me. One chapter focuses on a key issue in the understanding of representative democracy--the nature of representation. Morgan makes the intriguing point that representation is a "fiction," (page 225) "by which the larger fiction of popular sovereignty has been itself sustained." A fiction. . . . And with that, what of democracy as a form? That is why the chapter immediately following makes so much sense--the role of the Antifederalists, those who opposed the Constitution because of their fears that it would undermine some of the democratic impulses of the time.
Like many collections, sometimes this does not hold together too well. There are some idiosyncratic judgments by Morgan. Still, if you want to read a book that will make one reflect, this does its job well.
July 31, 2013
The title of this book is very deceiving. You open it believing that Morgan started this book with the intent to construct a book centering around the contributions certain people have made that then have caused them to be "heroes" in the founding of our country. Instead, he did not write the book using that premise but instead went back and picked through previously published (and unpublished) essays on varying subjects that could all be contorted to fit the definition of "hero". Many of them were, in fact, heroes, but some of the essays did not even focus in on one "hero" for its entirety. Most of the essays seemed to me to go along the lines of "here is a point which had led to arguments in academic circles for a long time and here is my opinion on the matter" and while that's not necessarily bad, those who are picking up this book probably are not looking for arguments over small historical tidbits but larger facts and biographies. This book is not bad, not in the slightest, but it is misnamed and a poor choice for a school summer reading for the facts are not all listed out and some previous knowledge is required to fully appreciate what Morgan constructs.
But seriously, doesn't a book like this require a bibliography?
But seriously, doesn't a book like this require a bibliography?
March 5, 2017
This collection of essays on the Puritans, Quakers, and Founding Fathers has some interesting observations:
- "Libraries will remain the nurseries of heresy and independence of thought. They will, in fact, preserve that freedom which is a far more important part of our life than any ideology or orthodoxy." From an essay written in 1959. I've been wondering about the Internet's effect on this idea; it's easier to get access to "heresy", but it's also easier to surround oneself only with those who agree with you.
- Our representative government is a fiction: it is impossible for a representative to exactly represent the beliefs and desires of thousands of others. Their job rather is to work for the good of the country instead of just their constituency.
- Washington refused to endorse political candidates to avoid, in his words, "interfering directly or indirectly with...the choice of their representatives". In the same spirit, he also refused to veto many bills that he personally disagreed with.
- "Libraries will remain the nurseries of heresy and independence of thought. They will, in fact, preserve that freedom which is a far more important part of our life than any ideology or orthodoxy." From an essay written in 1959. I've been wondering about the Internet's effect on this idea; it's easier to get access to "heresy", but it's also easier to surround oneself only with those who agree with you.
- Our representative government is a fiction: it is impossible for a representative to exactly represent the beliefs and desires of thousands of others. Their job rather is to work for the good of the country instead of just their constituency.
- Washington refused to endorse political candidates to avoid, in his words, "interfering directly or indirectly with...the choice of their representatives". In the same spirit, he also refused to veto many bills that he personally disagreed with.
November 12, 2014
I thought this was a good collection of revealing essays on Early American history by Edmund S. Morgan.
I think too much time was spent on the Puritans though and could have been devoted to other individuals.
I was especially impressed by the section on the Korbmacher Witch Hunt mob incident that occurred in 1787 in Philadelphia while 55 enlightened men were in Independence Hall debating the US Constitution. It was well covered in the local press which was at least bold enough to be on the side of the woman. She survived one beating by the people of the City of Brotherly Love but died from her wounds eight days after being attacked a 2nd time for "sorcery", which they thought caused events such as the current heat wave and the death of a local child. The juxtaposition of incidents like this remind us that much history has been sanitized for our protection.
I think too much time was spent on the Puritans though and could have been devoted to other individuals.
I was especially impressed by the section on the Korbmacher Witch Hunt mob incident that occurred in 1787 in Philadelphia while 55 enlightened men were in Independence Hall debating the US Constitution. It was well covered in the local press which was at least bold enough to be on the side of the woman. She survived one beating by the people of the City of Brotherly Love but died from her wounds eight days after being attacked a 2nd time for "sorcery", which they thought caused events such as the current heat wave and the death of a local child. The juxtaposition of incidents like this remind us that much history has been sanitized for our protection.
March 29, 2010
This is a book of essays by Edmund Morgan, whose work I have read and enjoyed in the past. The essays in this volume that I enjoyed the most were "Dangerous Books," which discusses the donation, in 1714, of some 500 books to Yale University by such figures as Isaac Newton and Edmund Halley, and the revolution in thought that these books caused among the educated youth of New England; "The Contentious Quaker: William Penn," which made me realize how little I knew of the Quakers and the contributions to thought made by William Penn; and the essays in Part III, "Revolutionary Leaders," which shed light on the origins of the U.S. constitution.
May 5, 2014
I started reading this book and then got a feeling of deja vu. As I looked through the book and back at the Table of Contents, I realized that I had already read this book!
Excellent!
One of my favorite quotes in this book is when the author states that "there is no more insidious instrument of change than a library in which professors or students or people in general are allowed to read the books" when talking about books and libraries in Chapter 2.
People (in general) always assume that libraries are slow to change.
Excellent!
One of my favorite quotes in this book is when the author states that "there is no more insidious instrument of change than a library in which professors or students or people in general are allowed to read the books" when talking about books and libraries in Chapter 2.
People (in general) always assume that libraries are slow to change.
August 17, 2009
Bleh. Not what I was expecting, even from such an established member of the Ivory Tower Club of History Writing. :-) Some pieces mildly interesting, some tedious, many just odd. A somewhat interesting piece on the Salem Witch Trials was marred, for example, by a very odd reference to the Puritans of the time being superior to us because at least they later admitted the trials were a travesty, and no one has yet apologized for the Sacco and Vanzetti trial. HUH? No links drawn, I guess he takes it on faith that his readers will all nod and say "Oh, yes." Bizarre.
August 29, 2011
The title, btw, is misleading - but probably more retail-friendly than "A Bunch of Old Essays on Early American History My Agent Suckered My Publisher Into Reprinting". Snarky comment on the title aside, there's some interesting stuff in here - some real insight into the Puritan mind & society, along with an extensive essay on Ben Franklin that makes me want to read Morgan's biography of the man.
OTOH, there are other essays that haven't aged well or were never printed in the first place... and the ode to a historian that closes the book seems radically out of place.
OTOH, there are other essays that haven't aged well or were never printed in the first place... and the ode to a historian that closes the book seems radically out of place.
May 5, 2014
Based on the cover (I know, I know, you can't judge a book by it's cover), but still, based on its cover, I assumed this would look at our founding fathers -- Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, etc.
While the author does include Washington and Benjamin Franklin, he also includes many earlier influences -- people or otherwise!
A fascinating piece of literature relating to our country's history.
While the author does include Washington and Benjamin Franklin, he also includes many earlier influences -- people or otherwise!
A fascinating piece of literature relating to our country's history.
October 12, 2013
One of historian Edmund S. Morgan's final books, structured as a series of essays he wrote from the 1940s to the early 21st century. Collectively, they showed why Morgan was such a preeminent expert on the Colonial and Revolutionary War time periods. This book spans 200 years or so of American history so it may not go into the depth you'd find in more focused history books, but it does contain some great observations and analysis of a crucial era.
Read
November 14, 2012This book wasn't what I expected, but it was good none the less. It's a compilation of essays written by the author, some published previously, others not. The topics vary from the exploration of the New World, to the Salem Witch Trials and Puritan New England, and beyond. It is an interesting read, however some of the essays felt a bit repetitive and long to me.
September 27, 2013
I was required to read this over the summer for my US history course. I admit, I couldn't do more than skim it. Morgan is definitely a talented writer and knowledgable about puritans and the American revolution, but I simply couldn't get excited, or even interested, in this book. Three stars because of the author's good intentions.
July 22, 2009
This book is broken up into essays on a variety of topics concerning Early America. I enjoyed some very much but found others to be less interesting and lengthy. I like how the author explained his thinking and I enjoyed his quotes from primary sources.
August 8, 2009
Great book of wonderful essays. Lots of fun for those interested in history as well as those interested in the study of history. The title, is a bit inaccurate, but I guess "Some Famous Folks involved in Colonial and Early USA" just doesnt have the marketing pizzah.
November 13, 2010
Morgan is a fantastic writer and really brings these historical players to life. A few of the essays were a tad long, but still interesting as a whole. I learned a lot about this crucial time of US history.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 36 reviews