Empire of Liberty: A History of the Early Republic, 1789-1815 (Oxford History of the United States)

The Oxford History of the US is one of the greatest series of history books of which I am aware. Being of that series, Empire of Liberty (EoL) is certainly an interesting and in-depth look at the United States during a critical period in our evolution. I would recommend this book to anyone interested in the period.

That said, there are several reasons I would only give this volume 3 stars.

The book is structured as a series of essays on topics. So for instance, a chapter (essay) on the evolution of Amerian law is followed by a chapter (essay) on Chief Justice Marshall. A reader can't help wondering if the two topics could be covered at once. Because of this structure, almost every chapter until the last few is constantly reviewing the entire period. Over and over again, the book swings through a period of 50 years or more. The essay structure is further exacerbated since many of the chapters are structured as multiple essays. The chapter on religion for instance has a separate essay on millenial beliefs.

Overall while the essay structure might be interesting for many readers on particular topics, it leads the book to be a tough read. And it also makes it difficult to get a feel of the overall chronology of the period. Even more distracting for me, this essay structure leads the book to often be a list of examples. Take the millenial essay, it is essentially a list of millenial proponents and statements during the period. OK, but this doesn't place these people in context or give one a feel for how they fit overall in the period.

EoL is a great book. (It probably is warranted 5 stars compared to the mass of history books.) But as part of the Oxford series, I would expect it to be better written.

I bought the book thinking that I was going to get a better explanation of the reasons and ideas that lead to the U.S. War of 1812. No such luck. This book explains some of the political reasons for the war. My search for a book that explains the economic reasons for “the second war of independence” conclusively continues. This is a book that explains in detail the change from the monarchy to the republican way of government. A scholar’s work that is 1) easy to read, 2) well researched, 3) contain lots of insights, and 4) is well balanced. I am not a fan of the way the book was structured. The first 8 chapters seem to be linear and chronological from the 1787 Constitutional Convention to 1800, but in chapter 9 after reaching Jefferson’s election of 1800, the author hits reverse and goes back to cover specific topics of the 1790s. Then chapter 18 attempts to get back to the chronology with the War of 1812. Half of the book is organized chronologically and the other half by topic. I would say that coverage of the 1790s take about 75% of the Empire of Liberty. The book’s focus on Jefferson and the Republican ideas keeps the Federalists anglophiles in the background, leaving with it the largely unexplained British-American relationship after independence. The Louisiana Purchase, the act that double the size of the country and opened up the Mississippi’s commercial highway, was gloss over rather quickly. No mentioning of the fact that our former enemy’s (England) financiers facilitated the purchase, by lending money to a nation that was broke. How did that happen? I would have preferred a chapter explaining financial operations during this period, than the chapter that was spent on religion. Personally I don’t like when authors hint things like “the second war of independence” without explaining it. Was the War of 1812 a second war of independence? Regardless of the weaknesses we can come up with, this book is still a “must read” if you are looking for insight on this period of American history.

That line alone (from Wordsworth) should be enough to ensure the immortality of its creator. Anyone who has ever been part of the brilliant springtime of a movement can begin to glimpse the Platonic shadows of what it must have been like in the revolutionary era. To have a set of ideals – well-known ideals to be sure – but ideals upon which no country had been built since ancient times – ideals upon which it was thought to be impossible to build a stable government – but anyway to use them to start an entirely new country. And Americans knew what they were creating. They knew that their country was a grand experiment. They knew that their country was the happiest in the world. And this knowledge permeated deeply. So deeply that it is felt to this day in American Exceptionalism.
So did the people of America spend their days singing and toasting? Was it really all the people who were included? Were there other loyalties and feelings that were as strong or stronger? Did this exceptionalism come from the creation of the country, or was there something special about the place and its society that made for the creation of this exceptional country? What were those special qualities?
It is probably a truism that, if you take a 25-year period in the history of any country, life will be very different at the end than the beginning. (At least in the last few hundred years.) Still, one can easily make the argument that 1789-1815 is exceptional even among generational changes. For one thing, Americans were building a new form of government, one that had never been tried before, especially in a country of mind-boggling size (consider that communication from one end to the other took several weeks!). And while the outlines could be settled, there were deep deep differences in feeling how this should be carried out. For another, the entire economy was changing – a middle class was emerging, a fact which greatly affected the day-to-day lives of much of the population. And there are many other aspects (beyond building a government and a transformed economy) which may be even more important: slavery was becoming entrenched; First Peoples were being destroyed; a large fraction of the population was migrating; a large fraction of the population was finding religious awakening; the attitudes of the enlightenment were evolving (descending) into crassness and romanticism; sections of the country were growing apart in a way that could only lead to dissolution or war.
As one digs down into the era, or, rather, as one becomes experienced with reading histories of an era, one sees how each of these facets can itself be a major book. “Empire” appropriately covers the major events in several chronologically ordered chapters and then has several crosscutting chapters, e.g., on law, religion, foreign affairs, culture, and slavery.
Let’s continue with Wordsworth: “In which the meagre, stale, forbidding ways/Of custom, law, and statute, took at once/The attraction of a country in romance!” Yes, to build a new government. It is amazing how little we can take for granted when we do this. Should we have explicit laws and statutes? Are we really a country or an alliance of countries? Should the executive have any power? Should the judiciary be independent? Should the government actually do anything, or should it just be there to face the outside and referee internal disputes? Some things were certain: we should have no political parties.
There were two great points of view, which have come down to us a Federalist and Republican. The priority for Federalists was a strong national government with the ability to make internal improvements and to deal with other (monarchical) countries as an equal. Republicans believed in having virtually no government. Each point of view also had its problems. Federalists believed that this strong government should be run by the competent, which the “people” clearly were not – this led to some not completely democratic points of view that also carried unfortunately into other spheres. The Republican point of view is inherently problematic. Beyond the obvious there were other problems bordering on the wacky. They were dominated by state loyalty, especially for the southern states. Much of this may have been embarrassment or (at least) defensiveness about slavery. Much worse was the attitude that industry was bad and commerce much worse. Early Republicans therefore combined the worst aspects of libertarianism, communism, and feudalism, all at the same time. It is a miracle the country held together. Perhaps communication was so poor that inertia was sufficient. And both Federalists and Republicans missed the greatest advance of all – the rise of business. Federalists thought banking was only for large concerns. Republicans did not believe in business at all. Republicanism led to hypocrisy of bizarre proportions: they needed to start a war but refused to create a military to fight it!
Dominating “Empire” is Jefferson. Complicated? Yes. Brilliant? Undoubtedly. Wacky? Wow was he ever. Hypocrite? Biggest ever. Spends his life in debt while drinking fine wine and railing against commerce. Extolling the yeoman farmer while living off the effort of a hundred slaves. And on and on and on. His complete lack of understanding of economy is mind-boggling. That the country did not collapse is a miracle, probably due to the ingenuity and industry of its people. Which brings us to the rise of the middle class.
The theme of “Empire” is middling men. That is, men (in that time always men) who have wealth matching that of the leaders of the community but not the education, upbringing, or family connections. Sometimes resentful, often not, the great change in this era was the rise of the middle class. Most important was its existence and what it did to advance the prosperity of a large number families and the overall economy. It also changed the structure of society. The new leaders of society had not read Pliny or Montesquieu. And certainly not in Latin or French. The author spins middling men into every part of the book. Related is the expansion of industry including the factory scale, but in particular the at-home variety. Although industrious farmers had always done much more than farm, it seems that during this era outside occupations began to dominate. So that while 90% of the population were farmers, most of these were also shop keepers, millers, etc.
At some point we need to wrap this up so just to mention other areas where other paragraphs could be written: Destruction of enlightenment ideals and the building of the romantic; everyone else – women, first peoples, and slaves; migrations, expansion, new states; population explosion; art and literature; sectionalism; people, the towering figures and the decline of such; the birth of the legal system; dealing with the world; stories and myths; and - much more stayed the same than changed.
The book is monumental. It covers every major aspect of the era. Many paragraphs are obviously the summary of substantial study and analysis. The writing is coherent if, for the most part, unexciting. There are a number of criticisms.
Methodological. There are no argued themes, although some preferences do emerge. The author is clearly southern and has a republican bias. As much as slavery is given its due as an atrocity, there is still much apology and wishful thinking about the attitudes of the slaveholders. Much more interesting would have been an underlying argument – but this would probably make the book unreadable to those not agreeing with it.
Bias. As already said, the preference is for the Republican ideals, especially freedom and low taxes. John Adams does very badly. Most of the references are mocking, which is all too easy for a quirky person. Jefferson, for all his idiocy, is the hero. It’s as if without Jefferson we’d all be serfs.
More methodological. Most of the illustrations are by anecdote. Would that we had a few charts and graphs. Clearly this is from the essay/anecdote school of history. Context is missing.
Unevenness. Some sections are weak, especially the one on art and culture. They ramble and appear to be concatenation of note cards.
Coverage. Speaking of 25 year epochs – this book was written in the mid-00s, it is now 2020. In that time, perhaps half an epoch, there have been many great changes. One is the realization of the breadth of society. “Empire” is rapidly becoming obsolete. There is virtually no mention of everyday life or of women. And while slavery has an important place, including making up the coda, it is a fraction of what we now expect. And First Peoples get far less attention even than that.
More bias. Another great change in the current generation is the rise of the extreme right. It is impossible to avoid the parallel with Jeffersonian Republicanism. But as extreme as the current form is, with its hatred of anything to do with government, it pales in comparison to what Jefferson wanted. When government is hated, it is run by people who hate government, and it reduces to willful incompetence whose function is solely to be looted by same.

Considering that this book is part of the Oxford History of the United States, and then adding Gordon S. Wood as the author, you know that an important work of American history has been brought forth.

Wood is a prominent historian, a learned man and supreme scholar, and while the tome is more than 700 pages there are no wasted words and the book is very informative. In reading this book, you will be delighted to learn new things about the subject matter as presented by the author. I like very much that he does not go in a strict chronological order, but rather deals in topics pertaining to the development of the nation through the first four presidents. While every historian must have his or her own theories and opinions (many involving politics), Wood presents an even handed history, and while I suspect he is leaning more toward an America that adopted an egalitarian attitude largely due to hatred of the British and admiration of the French Revolution, the author has the decency to not shove it down your throat.

He does a very good job of introducing us to not only the main players during this critical time of our nation's history, but also brings forth the middling classes, as he calls them. These people are essentially what we would refer to as the "middle class" of today, whether lower, middle, or upper middle class. The rise of this class, coupled with the concept of equality became very critical of the Federalists and their sense of upper class rule. Many of these people had visions of a type of wealth enjoyed by the British peers, but that did now work in America because land was so abundant and a "gentleman" had to come to his money by methods other than simply collecting rents and devoting his life to his interests and pleasures. America was more a working and hustling place. There were those who thought that Washington was too regal, with his formalities, levees, and sense of superiority, and while Washington was in every respect the indispensable man, he was greatly concerned about his every action and how it would set a precedent in a newly formed government. Yes, he was thin skinned, and did not do well with criticism, but he believed in a central government and a strong executive office. His eight years of serving as the chief executive were what held the nation together.

In spite of the national devotion to Washington, politics were brewing. Alexander Hamilton was the most important cabinet officer in Washington's administration, and it was his brilliance in matters of finance that set America on a sound footing. His ideas of the assumption of the various state debts due to the Revolutionary War restored the credit of the United States, but it also established the Federal government as superior to that of the individual states. The author points out that with Hamilton coming from the Caribbean, and the bastard son of a Scottish peddler, he had no sense of loyalty to any state as did Jefferson and Madison and others to Virginia. He and Jefferson became adversaries who saw the utopia of the United States from totally different perspectives. Jefferson was more a philosophical visionary, possibly a man more suited to be a professor, but a person who gained immense fame as the primary author of the Declaration of Independence and then became the leader of the opposition to the Federalists. Wood does point out that the very idea of party politics at that time was totally unrelated to what we know today. Prominent men did not campaign for office, but used letters to their supporters and encouraged others to publish in newspapers opinions that were in their favor and would likely result in votes.

Poor John Adams. He was the first man to suffer the office of the Vice President of the United States. His reputation as a grumpy old man was well deserved and he was a novice in political intrigue and outmatched by both Jefferson and Hamilton. His single term as president was a success in that he kept America out of a war with France and with Jefferson's election, Adams left on an early morning stage for his home without remaining to participate in the exchange of power. Jefferson, in his typical democratic style, walked to the inauguration from his boarding house. That reminds me of the same thing for dramatic effect, when Jimmy Carter walked down Pennsylvania Avenue and ushered in a completely ineffective administration. It was also interesting that the result of the election of 1800 put Jefferson in the White House, largely because he carried 82% of the electoral votes of the slave states. In those state, a slave was counted as 3/5 of a person, and the irony is that Jefferson, a slave holder who championed life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, carried only 27% of the Northern states, which reinforced the Federalist fear that the South was taking over the nation. Jefferson was called behind his back, the Negro president. While he aspired to individual freedom, it was interesting to me (from another book) that when Lafayette last visited Jefferson at Monticello and suggested that slaves be taught to read and write in order to make the transition to freedom, old Tom simply said that would not work because they would learn to forge papers and run away to freedom. Between that and Sally Hemings, Jefferson for me takes a back seat to greatness, but I felt that Wood still worships at the altar of his wickedness.

There is a great chapter on slavery and it reveals how our nation appeared to be moving away from the peculiar institution, but there were two factors that changed that. The first was the invention of the cotton gin, which immediately changed the agricultural scene to cotton because it was so much more lucrative, and the revolution in Haiti which lasted for ten years and caused great concern because of its success and the brutality that the white salve owners suffered. Jefferson never recognized Haiti as a nation, but it was the next country after America to gain independence and they did allow all people to be free.

Little is said about Jefferson's administration. We all know it primarily for the Louisiana Purchase, which cannot be credited to TJ's diplomatic finesse, but many historians want to brush over his disastrous embargo policy, which destroyed the economy of the United States during his mess of a second term.

There is a great deal of good information here and I would suggest that everyone interested in the early development of this nation have this book in their home.

Gordon Wood's Empire of Liberty is part of the on-going Oxford History of the United States series. It fits between the edition on the American Revolution and the run up to the Civil War. Wood covers the constitutional and early national period. George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and James Madison were the presidents and Alexander Hamilton, Albert Gallatin, Timothy Dwight, James Monroe, and a host of others play the supporting roles that helped the new nation define itself. But Wood does not limit his book to political theory and governmental organization. While these were important features to our country, westward expansion, slavery, Indian relations, education, religion, and commercial developments impacted everyone from the president on down to the common man and woman. Wood expertly weaves a historical account that explains how many diverse activities brought the nation from its infancy to its youth along with the optimism, expectations, personal goals and other themes that helped define our existence.

Wood is a master historian who can take on this Herculean task and have the result make sense. It would be easy to become bogged down in detail and overlook the big picture. Wood keeps a perspective about his work that befits a historian of his ability. He can address the touchy subjects like slavery and war and questionable political decisions and have them become a factor in his work without having them consume his work. The end result is a book worthy of its Pulitzer nomination.

But while the book was nominated, it is also clear why it did not win the award. Wood tends to belabor some points almost to the point of being excruciatingly analytical. He goes into detail on the arts or on philosophical theories surrounding Republicanism versus Federalism to the point that the reader just wants the chapter to end. As a result the book is a tad overlong. Wood might have eliminated nearly 100 pages by adopting brevity rather than continued detailed analysis, but he had his points to make and the end result does not suffer from his tendency towards detail.

For this reason the average reader may find this book tedious at times, but the serious scholar will fully appreciate the amount of research that went into this book and the amount of care Wood took to convey his message. Either way, there is a world of information to be gained from reading this book and no one who has any level of interest in our nation's history should not consider reading this book. It may take some time to get through it, but one will be much better informed about "the rest of the story" of the Founding Fathers. If the Revolution got the ball rolling (to use a tacky metaphor), Empire of Liberty does a superb job in getting the historical account of America to the next level. It is a bit unfortunate that Oxford University Press has been so hap-hazard and disjointed in publishing the story of America, but at least the volumes that are complete are all solid histories that do not fail to deliver a quality product. But someday a student will be able to pick up all the volumes and read about American in consecutive volumes from accomplished historians. We're just not there yet, so be patient.

We expect more from a book in this series -- for this reason I could almost give only one star. The big problem is that Wood is so full of himself. I would prefer my history more factual and less processed. I read another book in the series: "Battle Cry of Freedom" and finished the book eager to read it again. I finished this book eager to never see it again. There is a big difference between being nominated for and winning the Pulitzer Prize. And don't let the fact that Wood won the prize for another book he authored deceive you in any way.

One gets the impression that Wood is a modern day Federalist, despising the "middling sort" that has has so much to say about. There is a word in the book that is poorly chosen and entirely worn to a thread. The chapter on religion is the absolute low point in the book, Pay attention when the war of 1812 is discussed or you will miss it.

Mostly well written but the author conveniently forgets to add key important details which are needed. For e.g. there are many pages devoted as to why Hamilton and others wanted to ratify the Constitution, however, when it comes to the actual manner that they did so, that, is missing. A bit frustrating because it is like building up a climax but when you get to the results you have no idea how you got there.

"Empire of Liberty: A History of the Early Republic, 1789-1815" by Gordon S. Wood is a excellent overview of the chaotic years following the establishment of the American republic after the 1787 federal convention in Philadelphia. The convention of '87 established the first modern republic in the western world, the establishment of which sowed the seeds of American democracy that have come defined the United States for last 226 years under the Constitution. Dr. Wood begins this tour de force with an overview of Washington Irving's "Rip Van Winkle." This short story by Irving, as Wood makes clear, captures the conservative angst felt by some Americans during the 26 year period between the adoption of the Constitution and the War of 1812. In this 26 year period, which was marked by a rapid change in politics and culture, saw the United States grow from just 13 states in 1789, to 17 states and vast western territories ceded by the French during the Louisiana purchase. The growth of American territory during this period is symbolic of the growth of democratic ideas. In 1789 most Americans believed that a republic could only be established in a small territory, but thanks to statesmen like James Madison, the framers of the Constitution believed that an extended republic was possible in the United States. The establishment, therefore, of an extended republic, led to a liberalization of politics never seen before in the western world. This liberalization created the first two political parties in American history: the Federalist and Republicans. The Federalists were the party that represented British values. Their believe in the English constitution as the best in the world served for the Federalist as a model to emulate in the United States. Moreover, the Federalists were also culturally attached to England. Americans who identified with the Federalists tended to believe in a society in which there were natural leaders, endowed by education and wealth, and followers, who were not endowed with wealth or education. The Republicans (not to be confused with the modern Republican party) didn't believe in the artificial aristocracy the Federalists favored. They believed every man (white males at the time) had a stake in the governing of their country, and therefore disliked what they felt were deceitful Federalist policies designed to establish an English type society within the new Republic. This struggle between the Federalist and Republicans therefore established long held values of American democracy we take for granted today like free speech and voting and civil rights. This struggle, as Wood beautifully captures, also shows the inconsistencies between America's growing democracy and institutions like chattel slavery. Wood uses excellent prose to bring to life the statesmen who gave birth to this empire of liberty and makes it an incredibly fun book to read about the early history of our country. Empire of Liberty is by far the most enjoyable book I have read.

The last 4 books I've read in succession have been 1.) [[ASIN:019531588X The Glorious Cause: The American Revolution, 1763-1789 (Oxford History of the United States)]] 2.) [[ASIN:B000M12CBM The Federalists: A Study in Administrative History by Leonard D. White]] 3.) [[ASIN:0679736883 The Radicalism of the American Revolution]] and now 4.) [[ASIN:0199832463 Empire of Liberty: A History of the Early Republic, 1789-1815 (Oxford History of the United States)]]. I feel that this progression has given me a long desired basic framework with which to analyze the events of the Early Republic. It should come as no surprise to students of the Early Republic that Gordon S. Wood has factored heavily in my reading list.

Empire of Liberty is a worthy successor to "Radicalism," expanding on Wood's analysis of societal upheaval, and adding to it a rich analysis of concurrent changes in art, culture, politics, economics, religion, diplomacy and war. Although this book covers the Quasi-War with France and the War of 1812 as well as numerous smaller Native American conflicts, the military details take an obvious second seat to social history. This is to be expected from a historian with Wood's specialty, but it is certainly the book's most obvious weakness. That said, the depth of analysis in social history more than makes up for the lack of military coverage, and other volumes such as [[ASIN:0252060598 The War of 1812]] and [[ASIN:B000JQV2W0 The Naval War of 1812]] are able to fill the gap.

I must disagree with other reviewers who argue that Wood is biased in favor of Jefferson and the Democratic-Republican party. While it is certainly arguable that Wood believes (much like Sean Wilentz) that social, economic and cultural changes in the Early Republic and the Antebellum period are largely the result of expanding democracy, Wood makes it clear that Jefferson was a flawed President with many highly questionable ideas and actions. Wood is highly critical of Jefferson's hypocritical attitude towards slavery and is also critical of Jefferson's idealism. Wood is an admirer of Alexander Hamilton, to the point of being in agreement with Leonard White that Hamilton was the most talented man of his age.

The most interesting aspect of Empire of Liberty is the argument being advanced, albeit subtly, that the driving force behind changes in society, culture, economics and politics was the expansion of democracy. Personally, I am more persuaded by historians in the vein of Daniel Walker Howe and [[ASIN:0195392434 What Hath God Wrought: The Transformation of America, 1815-1848 (Oxford History of the United States)]] who argue that these changes are largely the result of technological, scientific and economic development. This doesn't mean that I believe Wood's argument is unpersuasive, quite the contrary. Wood has provided a stirring argument and analysis that requires a historian of Howe's stature to effectively parry.

All in all, I feel that Empire of Liberty is an extremely under-appreciated book. Somehow passed over for the Pulitzer, somehow only has 72 reviews on Amazon, and seemingly flying under the radar of most of my colleagues, Empire of Liberty remains a top entry in the Oxford Series. This book is on par with [[ASIN:0195144031 Freedom from Fear: The American People in Depression and War, 1929-1945 (Oxford History of the United States)]] and [[ASIN:019516895X Battle Cry of Freedom: The Civil War Era (Oxford History of the United States)]], and one could make an argument that it belongs on the same level as Howe's work, mentioned earlier.

I really liked Empire of Liberty... Love a lot of different early American lit. I'm a HUGE Vickers fan. But I'm wondering, did anyone else feel like I did that Wood drastically underestimates the impact of social distinctions predicated upon wealth, especially inherited wealth? I couldn't get over it.