A.Ham Book Club discussion
The Quartet
>
Preface & Chapter 1
date
newest »
newest »
Regarding the 2nd question about when the country was founded, it was interesting to me as I had never thought of it that way. It is a valid point but the 2nd Constitutional Congress did pass a resolution and declared us as the US in 1776. While it was very loosely formed, we did become a nation at that point. However, the governing principles for this new nation were not fully established until the Phila Convention.
I found this statement regarding Washington interesting "His hostility to British authority, then, had a personal edge. While he understood and endorsed the political arguments about American rights, such arguments struck him as abstractions. His grievances were more palpably economic and even emotional." I also think this is why Washington epitomized the revolution more so than others. For Washington, the pain of British control had been felt in his pocket. He wanted to further his position socially but the fees and cost of goods made this challenging. They had also taken away his claims to land in the Ohio valley. Washington wanted a commission after his service in the French and Indian War but they would not grant one, treated like a second class citizen. But there was also a heartiness and resilience to Washington, much as there was in most Colonists. Something the British failed to appreciate or acknowledge.
2. I think he makes a very good argument. If indeed Americans felt no national identity -- and I do not believe that they did in 1776, only a common enemy -- then it follows that our nationhood (such as it is) came into being when the Constitution was finally fully ratified in 1789. It is very tidy however to promulgate the idea that America!! sprang into being on July 4th, and makes for a good patriotic fable. But it makes more sense, and is almost chilling, that the people of thirteen disparate "countries" assumed that once independence was won, they would carry on as sovereign powers, as stipulated in the flawed Articles. Was there much foresight as to where that could lead? Evidently not, probably because the immediate crisis of the war put that all on the back burner until it could be ignored no longer.5. I underlined a number of passages but here is a favorite: "...the United States came into existence in an era 'when the rights of mankind were better understood and more clearly defined, than at any former period.' Immanual Kant had yet to coin the term Enlightenment to describe this chapter in Western history, but even without the convenient vocabulary, Washington clearly grasped the central idea: namely, that the American Revolution had happened at a truly providential moment. It occurred when a treasure trove of human knowledge about society and government had replaced the medieval assumptions -- that 'gloomy age of Ignorance and Superstition' -- and thereby provided Americans with an unprecedented opportunity to construct a society according to political principles that maximized the prospects for personal freedom and happiness more fully than ever before. In effect, European thinkers over the past century had drafted the blueprint for a new political architecture, which was now readily available for Americans to implement."
This passage stood out to me because it puts forth the idea that, in a way, the Revolution was a foregone conclusion; it was only a matter of time before it would be demanded by the people, and whether the war took seven years or twenty, Britain was probably going to lose. How fortunate America was that this revolution was placed in the hands of incorruptible people like Washington and others, rather than despots, as took place in France the following decade. Also amazing that the Congress didn't totally bungle the entire thing, though not for lack of trying. It was all a confluence of miraculous events, one after the other.
1. I'm always disappointed when I hear allegations that an author has lied or plagiarized, so I was glad there was a link to the 2002 article and that I was able to get some clarification. No reason was given for McCullough's "fake" Jefferson quote, but he did apologize for it, and, as the author of the article stated, the rest of the book seemed beyond reproach. More serious, I felt, were the untruths Ellis told about his life, to which he admitted. In a way I was relieved that nothing was said about his scholarship or research or the veracity of his writing, but it does give one pause. If he makes up things about himself, how trustworthy are the findings and conclusions he has set down in his books? But I'll give him the benefit of the doubt here. For now.
2. I have always considered Lincoln's words "our fathers brought forth, on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty," etc. in his address at Gettysburg more a literary device than a statement of the nation's actual beginning, so there's some room for interpretation there. As Nancy has stated, we did *begin* as a nation in July 1776 when independence was declared, but as Jane pointed out, the United States of America as an actual "United States" took some time to achieve its national identity. I suppose I understand what Ellis is trying to say, but I'm not sure that Lincoln's opening words were absolutely literal.I enjoyed reading your responses, Jane and Nancy, and look forward to more discussion of this chapter. I'm pretty sleepy tonight and it's just about midnight, so I'm going to head for bed and look at the other questions tomorrow sometime.
I also wanted to add that like Jane, I too appreciated the passage regarding enlightenment and providence. Washington believed in providence, his own and that of this moment in time. I too think about providence and the odds of all of these great men coming together at this time and place. I can't help but think of Lin's words in Hamilton, "What are the odds the gods would put us all in one spot..." Furthermore, as harsh as the winters were, there were times where the weather worked to their advantage, such as the fog rolling in during the escape from Long Island. It seems to me that it was all meant to be.As for Patti's comments regarding the misquotes, I agree. McCullough may have misquoted but he generally is well regarded and respected for his research. For me, McCullough has a way of providing the details that sets the scene so that the reader feels as if they are present in that moment. I don't know a lot about Ellis, this is the first time I'm reading his work, but I do take issue with Ellis misrepresenting himself during his time in the military. However, I am trying not to focus on that so I don't let it ruin this book for me.
Mod
July 4, 1776 is certainly not a date to be overlooked, but the US Constitution was the feather in the the cap that was America's quest for complete independence. George Washington even called it a "rope of Sand" (Letter to Henry Knox in 1785) that united the states.
There are some historians who would have you believe that the Constitution was a "counter-revolution" and the anti-Feds actually had it right. But arguably, the Constitutional Convention further promoted the cause of the Revolution by adapting to the needs of the people; just as the Continental Congresses had done and just as the war had done.
As for choosing George Washington to lead the American Revolution, I think he embodied exactly what we needed at the time: persistence.
Alexander wrote: "I do agree that Lincoln using 1776 as the day our nation began is a convenient year to use. I truly do believe that our nation formed on September 17, 1787, but I think we needed that time of uphea..."Alexander, I like your point that we needed that period after the war for our needs to crystallize, and agree that a more accurate date for the beginning of the US is the signing of the Constitution.
I love Washington's "rope of sand" metaphor; thank you for mentioning it because I then wanted to see it in context [was pretty sure your "1775" was just a typo].
From the 1785 letter:
"How should we, when contracted ideas, local pursuits, and absurd jealousy are continually leading us from those great & fundamental principles which are characteristic of wise and powerful Nations; & without which, we are no more than a rope of Sand, and shall as easily be broken."
That's so wonderful. GW understood how fragile we were, and knew what we needed.
One quote (of several) that I liked from the book was about him:
"There was no question in his mind about the moral supremacy of the American cause, but he was at the core a rock-ribbed realist who realized that a fervent belief in the worthiness of a cause was no guarantee of its ultimate triumph. He was lashing his life and, even more psychologically important to him, his honor to a vessel that was sailing into uncharted and troubled waters.
"From the beginning, then, the war for Washington was an all-or-nothing wager."
Once again I find myself in awe -- what a damned miracle it was that this nation came about at all. What a close thing it was.
Mod
I'm ashamed because I was actually reading from a previous essay I had written arguing that September 17, 1787 was actually the beginning of our nation. It's right in the paper, but not here... dun dun dun.
Alexander wrote: "Yes, 1785! I didn't proofread before posting it, so thank you for the correction.I'm ashamed because I was actually reading from a previous essay I had written arguing that September 17, 1787 was..."
Haha, well, I think we can probably forgive you that tiny little transgression. I almost hated to bring it up... because OBVS George Washington was not psychic.
OR WAS HE!? ...dun dun dun... ;)
1. Joseph Ellis and David McCullough have been accused of lying and misquoting. How does this affect your reading of The Quartet? And does this change your reading of McCullough considering that McCullough apologized for misquoting Thomas Jefferson in his book?
2. Do you think Ellis is right when he asserts that Lincoln was wrong when he said 1776 was the beginning of our nation?
3. For those that read John Adams, do you see any parallels or differences in the first chapter?
4. Ellis describes how American independence meant something different to everyone. What do you think it meant? And how did George Washington "epitomize" it?
5. Did you have a favorite passage? What was it and why?