Empire of Liberty: A History of the Early Republic, 1789-1815

by Gordon S. Wood

Other authorsDavid M. Kennedy (Editor), Tim Green (Cover designer)

Hardcover, 2009

Status

Available

Call number

E310. W87

Series

The Oxford History of the United States (4)

Genres

Publication

Oxford University Press (New York, 2009). 1st edition, 1st printing. 800 pages. $35.00.

Description

The Oxford History of the United States is by far the most respected multi-volume history of our nation. The series includes three Pulitzer Prize winners, two New York Times bestsellers, and winners of the Bancroft and Parkman Prizes. Now, in the newest volume in the series, one of America's most esteemed historians, Gordon S. Wood, offers a brilliant account of the early American Republic, ranging from 1789 and the beginning of the national government to the end of the War of 1812. As Wood reveals, the period was marked by tumultuous change in all aspects of American life--in politics, society

Media reviews

The New York Times Book Review

On every page of this book, Wood’s subtlety and erudition show. Grand in scope and a landmark achievement of scholarship, “Empire of Liberty” is a tour de force, the culmination of a lifetime of brilliant thinking and writing.

User reviews

LibraryThing member Chris469

At 700 plus pages not for the faint-of-heart. At first I thought 26 years was such a short period of time that how could a book about the history of one nation occupy so many pages, but the events of the Washington, Adams, Jefferson and Madison Administrations were momentous, and important

evolutionary developments in our young republic cemented themselves into place that are still with us today, such as the development of an independent judiciary as a co-equal branch of government and the doctrine of judicial review. There's too much material to be covered for the book to have a perfectly harmonious interwoven narrative flow, so sometimes it reads like an edited book of articles by multiple authors, but that's probably the curse of any book covering everything significant that occured during this important time. Certain key themes do run through the book, such as the passing of leadership FROM a well-to-do class of well-educated gentlemen of the Englightenment (the Founders) who misguidedly assumed that they and their ilk would forever be deferred to when it came to wielding political power TO the "middling" sorts of commercial entrepreneurs and inventors who eschewed the powdered-wig types and took as their favorite founder the "self-made man" Benjamin Franklin. The troubling undercurrent of slavery - the problem that would not go away - is the other thematic continuity in the book. Some reviewers see this book as a "love letter" to Thomas Jefferson but I don't see it that way at all. If anything, it reaffirms for me some of the idealistic silliness of the man and how wrong he was about how the US would evolve. That said, he was a very significant individual for US historical and political development. If you have the time and interest in this period, defintely read the book. Especially if you are a Tea Party adherent - it may change your thinking about the Founders. For one thing, most Founders wouldn't want to be in the same room as an ill-educated, bumpkinish, anti-intellectual, sloganeering politician. For another, it becomes obvious that the Constitution was not handed down from God on stone tablets - it represented a set of political compromises. The Bill of Rights itself was a politically-motivated document designed by Congressman James Madison to get critics of the new Constituion to shut up and to stave off a second Constitutional Convention. According to author Wood, no one (including the Supreme Court) paid much attention to the Bill of Rights for over 100 years after its adoption.

Show Less

8 more

LibraryThing member stringsn88keys

Long and detailed history of a 26 year period, but I appreciated the book in that it neither struck a heavily patriotic or apologetic tone as a U.S. history book.This is part of an Oxford Series on U.S. History. I will definitely be seeking out the books covering other periods.

LibraryThing member Schmerguls

This is a big book and I will not pretend I found it unfailingly absorbing. There is lots of analytic history and not less narrative history, and so much was not the kind of history I like to read. But the treatment of, e.g., the early days of the Supreme Court, and of the Louisiana Purchase, and

of the War of 1812 are wll done. The War of 1812 was indeed a strange war. The country was not prepared for war but declared it anyway, then went bankrupt during the war, but got a good treaty because it had great treaty makers--and after the treaty was signed the battle of New Orleans made Americans think they had won the war--as they did, in the final analysis.

Show Less

LibraryThing member annbury

This book provides a close look at a critical period in U.S. history, from 1789 to the 1815. The growth of the institutions of American government, and the disagreements around that growth, are brought to the forefront. It was in this period that the mechanisms set up by the constitution came into

practice, and a discussion of that process has a great deal to say, I think, to current constitutional interpretation. I did not find it quite so gripping as the next two volumes of the Oxford series -- "What Hath God Wrought?" and "The Battle Cry of Freedom", but that relates to the subject matter. All in all, a key discussion of an important, if often ignored, period in our history.

Show Less

LibraryThing member wildbill

This book is well written and the author shows good command of all of the sources available. At least one-third of the cited sources are from letters emphasizing how important letters were as a form of communication in that era.
This period of American history does not receive as much attention as

the Revolution or the Civil War. However, the author highlights developments that were critical in the forming of the American Republic. It is important to remember that during this time, except in France for a few years, America was the only republican government in the group of countries that formed the European world. At the beginning of this period America was still very much England without a king or aristocracy. The elite was very similar to the English gentry and they ruled the country as if it was their right and duty to do so. The 55 men that wrote the constitution were all wealthy men who possessed the leisure to tend to the affairs of government, except for one delegate from Georgia.
The Federalist administrations of Washington and Adams continued this trend. One of the first items of business in the Washington administration was the selecting of titles for the different officers of the government. John Adams proposed to call the President "His Most Benign Highness". Washington adopted a weekly practice called a levee (an English term for the King's receptions). He would invite a number of people over to the White House and one by one he would go over and speak with them. John Adams referred to Washington as "the best actor of the presidency we have ever had". The author weaves a living tapestry of the period with a myriad of these types of details.
The strong point of the book is the analysis of the trends that developed as the country became a different place in 1815. One of the most significant trends was the rise of the "middling men". Middling men worked for a living and did not have the education of the original founders. They rose into positions of leadership as part of the rise of Jeffersonian republicanism. They began to coalesce with the formation of Democratic-Republican societies during the first days of the French Revolution. Many wore the French cockades to identify themselves.
In the early republic there was a fear that the country would adopt monarchical ways. Jeffersonian ideas and the rise of the middling men brought about the rise of republicanism. This trend continued throughout this period until the influence of the Federalists disappeared.
With the rise of the middling men the country became a nation of traders. Many farmers began to engage in small scale manufactures. These goods were produced for home consumption. As the country grew the home market expanded until it would support this type of industry. The lawyers and doctors were no longer members of the gentry but men with technical skills practicing a trade.
Jeffersonian ideas, which came into practice with his election as President in 1800, were the ideology of Republicanism. His words appear throughout the book and helped me understand his genius and its effect on the country.
The Federalists worked for a strong central government and a strong army and navy. Jefferson feared the takeover of the country by the military and opposed a standing army in peacetime. He preferred to use embargoes instead of building a navy to oppose the restrictions on American trade imposed by the British and French. He almost ruined the American overseas trade and damaged the economy of the northeast to the point they considered secession.
While Jefferson owned hundreds of slaves and ran a big plantation his ideal for America was the yeoman farmer. With the Louisiana Purchase Jefferson felt he had gained for the country land adequate for thousands of generations. At the same time he felt that it was unconstitutional.
Madison's administration was dominated by the War of 1812. The author skimps on the military aspect of the war but does an excellent job on the changes it brought to the country. The peace that ended the war did not address the impressment of seamen and confiscation of trading ships that were the main cause of the war. The popular belief was that with the victory in the Battle of New Orleans America won the war, even though the treaty was already signed. Americans felt like the winners and this contributed to the changes that took place after the war.
America in 1815 was a much different country. The War of 1812 is referred to as the Second American revolution. One detail cited by the author is very significant. In 1816 the Congress passed a tariff on imported foreign books. Jefferson and many of the colleges protested. The Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee responded that Americans did not need foreign books and American books were much better suited to the needs of Americans.
Americans saw their country as a different, special place. America was no longer a struggling ex-colony. At this time the home market had expanded and local manufactures met local needs. The gentry disappeared from political leadership and the middling men were in charge.
Another change in the country was the change in the attitudes toward slavery. In 1789 Americans North and South saw slavery as an immoral institution that would eventually fade away. By 1815 " Northerners came to realize that slavery was not going to disappear naturally, and Southerners came to realize that the North really cared about ending slavery." The author makes excellent use of quotes from Jefferson and Madison to set forth the dilemma that the institution of slavery posed in a country based upon freedom of the individual. Neither man with all their wisdom could see a peaceful resolution to this problem.
This is an excellent book. All the way through the bibliographic essay and the index. It was quite an investment in time but I learned a great deal. What I learned goes beyond the years 1789-1815 to present day America.

Show Less

LibraryThing member Doondeck

A spectacular survey of this period in American History. Political and sociological aspects are put in perspective and bring that period alive.

LibraryThing member benjamin.lima

It turns out, back in 1805, graduates of Harvard, Yale, and Princeton thought they were entitled to positions of leadership in society by virtue of their superior level of enlightenment and cultivation, and back then, too,
what was then called the "middling sort" of people resented them for it.

200

years ago, these people were called "Federalists" and "Republicans," but really, plus ça change...

Show Less

LibraryThing member rivkat

The chaos and contradictions of the early American republic (if we can keep it), engagingly told through the lives of specific people, mostly but not entirely white men, famous and not. Reading about this era isn’t just a Hamilton thing for me at this point; it helps reassure me that Americans

have always been this confused, vicious, and occasionally great, and that we can probably get through this too. I hope.

Show Less

LibraryThing member MacDad

In 1789 the United States started what amounted to a national reboot, as a new republic created by the ratification of the Constitution began operation. This was a massive and far-reaching endeavor, one that involved the creation of new offices and branches of government, the redefinition of

institutions, and a new assessment of relationships with both the thirteen states and the American people. What was at stake was nothing less than the very survival of the country as a union of states, as all of this took place under the shadow of the failure of the Articles of Confederation to provide for a government capable of tackling the challenges facing the country in the aftermath of the American Revolution, with the likely possibility that this would be the last opportunity to make union work before the country disintegrated into thirteen independent states competing with each other —or even being reabsorbed into the British empire.

This effort to launch a new republic is at the heart of Gordon Wood's history of the first two and a half decades of the United States under the federal government. As a preeminent scholar of American political thought and the revolutionary era, there are few historians better suited to the task of writing about this period of the nation's history. What he produces is a sophisticated account that explains the magnitude of the task facing the country during this period, how it was addressed by the men involved, and how their solutions provided the details lacking in the initial framework of the country. To do this, Wood starts with an extended exploration of that framework as it was perceived by the political actors of the era, reflected not just in the recent debates over the Constituton but in how they sought to turn the structure described in the document into reality. This involved filling in the details with laws passed in the new Congress; the actions and tone set by the president, George Washington (who occupied an office with no immediate parallel in the Western world); and the decisions and authority of a new body of judges, who occupied offices viewed with distrust by many people.

As political leaders worked out these details, differences emerged that reflected divergent visions of the nation. Four men in particular stand out in Wood's description of this divergence. Two of them, Alexander Hamilton and John Adams, advocated a strong national government backed by a socially conservative and hierarchical society. The other two, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, soon emerged in opposition to this, arguing for a smaller government that gave more latitude for the lower classes. Around these men coalesced the first national political parties, the Federalists and the Republicans, who fought with a bitterness that reflected the fact that the very concept of political opposition had yet to be established. This gave the politics of this period (which was still very much a preserve of the elite) a uniquely sharp edge.

In the end, the Republicans got the better of the argument, largely due to the broader changes taking place throughout the country. Wood describes well the evolution of American society during this period, which created a more egalitarian country than was envisioned by most of the Federalists. Yet by controlling the federal government for the first twelve years the Federalists were able to imprint their vision upon the country in ways that subsequent Republican Congresses and administrations were unable to alter. This was due in part to Republican disagreements as to how to undo the Federalist design, and to events overseas which underscored the need for a national government capable of expanding the nation and defending its interests abroad. The War of 1812 served as the embodiment of this need, as President Madison found his ability to wage war hampered by the underdevelopment of the country and the Republican limitations on government. Nevertheless, the nation's emergence intact from the war served as an affirmation of the success of the Constitution, reflecting its success in addressing the problems of the previous quarter-century.

In describing the history of this period, Wood displays the insights gained from a lifetime of scholarly study. This comes through on every page of the text, as he fills the book with carefully argued analysis backed by a wealth of scholarship. While Wood leans a little too heavily on his strengths as a historian of political ideology, his book untangles the complex issues of a vitally important period in American history. It makes for a sterling contribution to the Oxford History of the United States series, one guaranteed to endure as the standard text on the era for decades to come.

Show Less

Fewer