The Age of Federalism: The Early American Republic, 1788-1800

The Age of Federalism: The Early American Republic, 1788-1800 | Stanley Elkins, Eric McKitrick | Monumental

books:

The Age of Federal...

	The Age of Federalism: The Early American Republic, 1788-1800 Stanley Elkins, Eric McKitrick Oxford University Press, USA, 1995 - 944 pages average customer review:based on 15 reviews view larger image
	for more information click here

highly recommended

When Thomas Jefferson took the oath of office for the presidency in 1801, America had just passed through twelve critical years, years dominated by some of the towering figures of our history and by the challenge of having to do everything for the first time. Washington, Hamilton, Madison, Adams, and Jefferson himself each had a share in shaping that remarkable era--an era that is brilliantly captured in The Age of Federalism.
Written by esteemed historians Stanley Elkins and Eric McKitrick, The Age of Federalism gives us a reflective, deeply informed analytical survey of this extraordinary period. Ranging over the widest variety of concerns--political, cultural, economic, diplomatic, and military--the authors provide a sweeping historical account, keeping always in view not only the problems the new nation faced but also the particular individuals who tried to solve them. As they move through the Federalist era, they draw subtly perceptive character sketches not only of the great figures--Washington and Jefferson, Talleyrand and Napoleon Bonaparte--but also of lesser ones, such as George Hammond, Britain's frustrated minister to the United States, James McHenry, Adams's hapless Secretary of War, the pre-Chief Justice version of John Marshall, and others. They weave these lively profiles into an analysis of the central controversies of the day, turning such intricate issues as the public debt into fascinating depictions of opposing political strategies and contending economic philosophies. Each dispute bears in some way on the broader story of the emerging nation. The authors show, for instance, the consequences the fight over Hamilton's financial system had for the locating of the nation's permanent capital, and how it widened an ideological gulf between Hamilton and the Virginians, Madison and Jefferson, that became unbridgeable. The statesmen of the founding generation, the authors believe, did "a surprising number of things right." But Elkins and McKitrick also describe some things that went resoundingly wrong: the hopelessly underfinanced effort to construct a capital city on the Potomac (New York, they argue, would have been a far more logical choice than Washington), and prosecutions under the Alien and Sedition Acts which turned into a comic nightmare. No detail is left out, or left uninteresting, as their account continues through the Adams presidency, the XYZ affair, the naval Quasi-War with France, and the desperate Federalist maneuvers in 1800, first to prevent the reelection of Adams and then to nullify the election of Jefferson.
The Age of Federalism is the fruit of many years of discussion and thought, in which deep scholarship is matched only by the lucid distinction of its prose. With it, Stanley Elkins and Eric McKitrick have produced the definitive study, long awaited by historians, of the early national era.

for more information click here

Leisurely and Learned Look at the Founding Years

This book is about the fateful decisions and maneuvers our government took in the dozen years after the Constitution was adopted and the new country launched. The predatory European powers were a danger. The states, suddenly demoted to mere parts of a much larger entity, had local interests that sometimes boisterously resisted the new central government. Even the location of the federal capital became a focus for plots and low comedy. Finally, the Constitution left many things unsaid that had to be worked out in these first few years so that the government could run at all.

The spine of the story, though, is the ideological split between James Madison and Alexander Hamilton, the two most brilliant exponents of the new constitution and partners in getting it accepted. They fell out over issues dear to Hamilton and repugnant to Madison: a national bank, funding of the Revolutionary War debts, and the encouraging of manufacturing and commerce. The assuming of the war debt by the new federal government and its funding through the new bank meant that various bonds, notes, and IOU's that had been floating around for years, and trading at about 1 percent of their face value, suddenly became worth something. The subsequent scramble to speculate in all this paper repelled Madison and Jefferson. Hamilton was more sophisticated than these planter-aristocrats in the ways of money, and he viewed the scenes of greed and folly as no more than the means by which the debt would approach to par value and, through the Bank, become an actual resource for the use of capitalists in need of loans.

Madison -- and increasingly, Jefferson -- very self-consciously formed an "interest": the Republicans. They stood for states' rights as against the too-vigorous centralizing tendencies they saw Hamilton encouraging. They stood for the independent farmer as against the "money men" of the cities and their dependent mobs of factory workers. How could the virtue necessary to a true democracy be nurtured in a dark Satanic mill or a counting house?

The interesting thing about this "interest" of theirs was that they dared not call it a "party": that idea was anathema to the age -- Washington himself spoke much against party and faction. But that Republican interest proved to be, in nascent form, the first political party. It was soon opposed by another equally self-concious "interest": the Federalists, whose guiding spirit was Hamilton.

This book traces the rivalry between Federalists and Republicans, parties before the age of political parties. The writing is fine, and charming portraits of the players in this drama, as they come and go, entertain even as they deepen the story. The authors' scholarship is well equal to the task (the book won the Bancroft history prize), and they rather playfully take time here and there to revise certain received ideas about the period, without simply setting up a new dogmatism. They are particularly strong on the diplomatic games that were afoot with France and England, to keep us out of their wars and out of their clutches. But basically it is a portrait of that most interesting time in our country -- its beginning.

for more information click here

Monumental

Authors Eric McKitrick and Stanley Elkins deservedly won the Bancroft Prize in 1994 for their brilliant analysis of arguably the most tempestuous epoch in American political history. The authors note that modern Americans cannot truly understand the America of the 1790s. National political culture was, in their assessment, inchoate and malleable in the decade after the ratification of the Constitution. They argue that if Tocqueville had visited the US in the 1790s instead of 1831 he would not have been able to write "Democracy in America." The contours of American life and themes of democratic society that Tocqueville wrote about and that have remained so enduring and thus familiar to 21st century Americans simply did not exist in the last decade of the 18th century. The objective of this book is thus to understand how the Federalists - claiming many of the most revered Founding Fathers in their ranks and in most ways trumpeting a vision of American society and economy that ultimately prevailed - could have been politically annihilated so quickly and completely.

For Elkins and McKitrick the contest can be reduced to an ideological battle between Hamilton and Jefferson over competing visions of the future of America. And more than anything else, foreign policy was the dividing line between the competing sides. One of the ironies of the age, as described by the authors, is that while Americans everywhere obsessed about their country's relationships with England and France, officials in London and Paris really had little interest or concern about their relationship with the fledgling Republic on the other side of the Atlantic. Events that took on monumental proportions in the US, such as the signing of the Jay Treaty or the Convention of 1800 with Napoleon, were insignificant episodes in Europe, where the entire continent was engaged in an apocalyptic struggle for national survival.

Although Jefferson and Hamilton are the primary protagonists in the drama, they do not individually dominate the storyline. In fact, the authors employ an interesting approach to creating their narrative. It is a mix of chronological and thematic storytelling that works incredibly well. For instance, a chapter will focus specifically on a single year, say 1791, and will also concentrate on a specific theme, such as James Madison and his mix of ardent nationalism, loyalty to Virginia and his contribution to the ideological foundations of the Constitution, the composition of the Federalist Papers and his rather stunning conversion to strict constructionism in the face of Hamilton's sweeping economic program.

The authors write with admirable clarity and describe the basic political and ideological fault lines cogently and with flair. "The Age of Federalism" represents a balancing of the historical record to a certain extent. The authors are rather sympathetic to the Federalists and many of their leading lights and most notable achievements, and respectfully take issue with the judgments handed down by earlier historians of significant influence, such as Samuel Flagg Bemis. In the authors' estimation, Hamilton's economic system was brilliant; Washington was a truly noble figure who did a remarkable job holding the country together in uncertain times, while maintaining an honorable neutrality, opening the Mississippi while pacifying the Indians, and laying the groundwork for unprecedented economic growth; and that the hated Jay Treaty was in fact a brilliant document that made the economic prosperity of the 1790s possible and that Jay himself did a great job as negotiator.

One of my favorite aspects of this book are the crisp biographical sketches the authors provide for some two dozen characters of the period. Besides the historical heavyweights, they also write about sidebar and shady players like William Duer and Matthew Lyon. Elkins and McKitrick are not afraid to cast judgment either. Secretary of State Edmund Randolph is described as an entirely forgettable figure who tip-toed around the edges of treason in his candid conversations with the French Minister in the US; future president James Monroe comes off as a sort of fanatical simpleton; while Randolph's replacement as Secretary of State, Timothy Pickering, is cast as the narrow-minded High Federalist par excellence.

In sum, Elkins and McKitrick maintain that the Federalist disintegrated for three inter-related reasons. First, they refused to play their part as a political party - they saw themselves as the legitimate government, not a faction like the Republicans. The Federalist put themselves at an insurmountable political disadvantage by their insistence on leading the public rather than appealing to it as the rival Republicans did. Second, the Federalists over-reached after the XYZ Affair with the Alien & Sedition Acts and Hamilton's New Army, which arose the worst fears in moderate voters and permanently alienated the Irish and German voters, the latter of which had hitherto been staunch Federalists. Finally, the rupture between Adams and the core Federalist base led by Hamilton doomed the party to self-immolation.

"The Age of Federalism" is not a light (or short) read and some understanding of the period is likely required to fully enjoy and appreciate the wonderful narrative the authors construct, but for anyone with a keen interest in early American history and even contemporary politics it is a classic that will be treated as such for generations.

for more information click here

One of the best general works about the early Republic

This is a splendid, well-written study for the general reader about the Federalist period, which runs from approximately 1788 through 1800. This book is very well documented, and gives great insight into the key players in that critical period, their concerns, the alliances they made and broke, and how they marshalled public opinion and financial backing for their views. Careful attention is paid to the character and activity of Washington, Hamilton, Jefferson, Madison, John Adams, and other supporting players.

For anyone who wants to acquire a good grounding in early American history, this is a great place to start. The source materials, bibliography, and footnotes alone are worth it. Fortunately, the text is highly readable as well, and flows with authority and wit.
Highest recommendation.

for more information click here

The Age of Federalism

This is a very detailed account of American History from 1788-1800 - which is from the ratification of the Constitution to the end of the John Adams administration. Unless you are very interested in this period of American History I would not recommend it. It is not an easy read for someone who has a more general interest in American History.

The authors do an excellent job of organizing and explaining the political events during this critical period of our nation's history. It is called The Age of Federalism because it is during this time that those in favor of a more robust and powerful central (federal) government established the framework for how the constitution would operate in practice. The two most important figures were George Washington and Alexander Hamilton. John Adams could be added to this list only as a result of his becoming the second President of the United States. His truculent personality, lack of executive experience, and inability to foster working relationships with other "Federalists" contributed to Jefferson's ascension to the Presidency 1800 and the end of The Federalist Era.

This was a period of time that saw the informal creation of what were, essentially, political parties. They were not political parties in the modern sense, but two loose factions existed that broke along very fundamental conceptions of how the government should operate. Opposite the Federalists were "the Republicans" led by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison.

Several key political issues divided these factions. The most important was how much power the federal government should actually have. The Federalists wanted a strong federal government, while Republicans leaned toward a less powerful central government with more authority residing in the states. There were also other divides: Jefferson's idealistic (and unrealistic) conception of the country as yeoman farmers versus the Federalist's desire to foster mercantilism. The Federalist were supposedly pro-British, while the Republicans pro-France - with reactions to the French Revolution playing a key role in factional politics. And to some degree Federalist were seen as desiring a more elitist governing structure with limited participation by the populace in selecting the highest offices coupled with a strong executive branch, versus the supposedly more populist Republicans who desired more power in the more "popular" branches of government - the legislative branch and state governments. The issues of standing armies, taxation, and a national bank, among other issues, all were part of this divisive period.

By the time Jefferson became president the federal government and its foundation were clearly established and its legitimacy secured, which is what made this era so critically important in the nation's history.

for more information click here

An Interesting Read, Although Not the Best

I should point out this review is based on the first edition of the book, not the one here available. I don't know what changes may have been made in this one, but I feel confident the review may still have a place. It should also be noted up front the reviewer considers a better, if older, study of the period The Federalist Era 1789-1801.

The authors have reputations that would make this book seem more valuable than it actually is. It is not a book for anyone who has no background in the Federalist period of our history, of, for that matter, in the colonial-revolutionary era. It is not a book for the faint of heart who are not willing to wade through page after page of bemoaning something that had little effect in the era in question, and is hardly worth considering now for practical reasons. What are you talking about? The location of our nation's capitol. If as in the old times the authors were being paid by the word, they could have found more worthwhile subjects to bemoan than the effect of having the nation's national city located on the Potomac River (the heart of southern sentiment) rather than on the Hudson in New York City. Had the federalists been more successful as a force continuing in American politics, the capitol would still not have been in New York or Philadelphia. Compromise with the Southern states would have dictated otherwise. Regardless of that, this is only one area where the book fails.

The authors have been criticized by their peers for not spending more time on that tiresome issue--Slavery. Considering the background of the scholars who wrote this volume that is something of a surprise. If this is the only book you ever intend to read on this amazing era, and you have some background or are willing to go outside the work for some clarification, then definitely read this. If you want to know the state of historical thought today on important old issues, then read this. If you are not a neophyte to the era, I can't in all good conscience recommend you spend this much on this book.

for more information click here

reviews: page 1, 2, 3

products you might be interested in