Book Review/Thoughts: The Quartet by Joseph J. Ellis

The Quartet: Orchestrating the Second American Revolution, 1783-1789 by Joseph J. Ellis

My rating: 4 of 5 stars

The second book I've read by Ellis ("Founding Brothers"), and I come away equally impressed. First, Ellis's writing style is accessible, providing significant detail and information without becoming overly dry and tedious; an accomplishment in any history book, and important in bringing good history to more and more people.

In the book, Ellis's primary argument, presented by his sub-title, is that there was a second American Revolution that occurred following the American Revolutionary War. Ellis supports this contention with a plethora of primary source documentation (always a good sign for any history book), and focusing on the four individuals he believes most responsible for that Revolution - George Washington, Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay. In so doing, he brings little tidbits of these individuals' own history to newcomers to the era, and clearly presents the pivotal role they played.

Washington and Hamilton, having served in the Continental Army during the War, were well aware of the ineffectiveness of a weak central, federal government. John Jay, in trying to accomplish various foreign policy objectives under the Articles of Confederation (adopted in 1783), was confronted with the impossibility of a cohesive foreign policy when trying to represent 13 sovereign states. Madison, some times called the "Father of the Constitution," seemingly understood the vulnerability the "United States" faced under the Articles, and the necessity for something different. Together, as Ellis effectively argues, they were able to change the language and the conversation from the Revolutionary War to allow for the transition from a confederation of loosely aligned states to a sovereign federal government with legitimate powers of taxation and foreign diplomacy.

I believe the book, in part, is perhaps a response to various misconceptions about the founding of the country. Ellis is very clear that the Constitution, in many ways the most revered document in our nation's history (along with the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights), is actually a small repudiation of what was fought for in the Revolutionary War. The War sought freedom from a government far away. In the late 18th century, a government based in Philadelphia was far away from South Carolina and Georgia. But the movement towards the Constitution was really a movement to make a stronger central government at the expense of state sovereignty, because of how incredibly ineffective governance was under the Articles of Confederation. This reality is lost on many in today's discussion about politics and our nation's origins.

But Ellis establishes this fact clearly and demonstrably, as well as showing that much of the intent of individuals like Hamilton and Madison in pushing the Constitution (those two being the primary writers of the Federalist Papers, which argued for the Constitution's ratification), was for power located in a cental government for efficiency and future flexibility, not necessarily agreeing with the limitations so often read into originalism by some legal scholars. In part, this was the reason why these individuals pushed so hard for ratification before the Bill of Rights, to have the Constitution stand alone before any amendments (a point Ellis makes as well).

In sum, Ellis has presented a cogent argument for this interpretation of the years between the Articles of Confederation and the ratification of the Constitution, and has done so in an easily accessible read.



View all my reviews