Book Review: "Founding Partisans: Hamilton, Madison, Jefferson, Adams and the Brawling Birth of American Politics"

H.W. Brands' new book is a reminder that partisanship is nothing new in American politics.

Hello, dear reader! Do you like what you read here at Omnivorous? Do you like reading fun but insightful takes on all things pop culture? Do you like supporting indie writers? If so, then please consider becoming a subscriber and get the newsletter delivered straight to your inbox. There are a number of paid options, but you can also sign up for free! Every little bit helps. Thanks for reading and now, on with the show!

---

H.W. Brands is one of those popular historians who has a true gift for narrative history and for letting the people of the past speak for themselves. In his newest book, Founding Partisans: Hamilton, Madison, Jefferson, Adams and the Brawling Birth of American Politics, he brings these skills to bear on one of the most pivotal and influential periods of American history. In this book we get a close-up look at the many debates that convulsed the early days of the republic, when individuals like James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, Alexander Hamilton, and many others engaged in rancorous disagreements as they tried to direct the course of the fledgling nation. 

Discussions about the rancor and corrosive influence of partisanship are everywhere these days, and it’s easy to see why. Ours is a very divided country, one in which every issue, no matter how large or small, is seemingly filtered through the lens of one’s partisan affiliations. Yet, as Brands repeatedly demonstrates in his book, ‘twas always so, as far back as the days of the Revolution itself. For all that men like Washington and Madison deplored the rise of political parties and saw it as a sign of political decadence–something more suited to the dissolute monarchies and failed republics of Europe than the new country they sought to bring into being. 

Of course, many of the great debates of the age centered on various domestic policies, particularly focused on just what the new nation would look like. As soon as it became clear that the Articles of Confederation just weren’t going to work, a whole new set of debates took shape as the Founders grappled with what a new Constitution should look like. It’s really quite fascinating to see how so many of the elements of our government that we take for granted now–up to and including the Bill of Rights itself–were subjects of fierce debate and disagreement among the Framers. 

It wasn’t long before parties were taking shape around two of the leading intellectual lights of the age. On the Federalist side there was Alexander Hamilton, a man who never encountered a battle or a conflict that he didn’t feel the need to participate in. On the other there was Thomas Jefferson, who was very wary of federal overreach, which led him to be particularly skeptical (and often downright hostile) to such institutions as the national bank, which was a particular pet project of Hamilton’s. For a time George Washington was able to keep the excesses of the two groups in check, due in large part to the esteem in which he was held by both his cabinet and the country as a whole. When he declined to run for a third time and John Adams was elected, however, things continued to get ever stickier. 

Brands rightly points out that this was also an era in which the parties used newspapers as proxies in their battles with one another. Unsurprisingly, the more unscrupulous members of the press were quite willing to use personal scandal to tar their enemies, as the unfortunate incident between Alexander Hamilton and the Reynolds make clear. Jefferson wasn’t exempt from this either, as his dalliance with Sally Hemmings was alluded to, though it failed to become as much of a sensation as Hamilton’s affair (largely because he, wisely, knew when to keep silent).

Nor were the parties’ differences limited to domestic policies, and perhaps no foreign issue excited both sides as much as the French Revolution. For the Federalists, the  excesses of the Jacobins were the perfect exemplar of their fears of the people. How could people be trusted to rule themselves, men like Hamilton argued, when this was the result? For Republicans like Jefferson, however, the shedding of innocent blood, while obviously regrettable and to be avoided at all costs, was sometimes necessary in the pursuit of a more perfect republic. 

As he has with many of his other works, Brands lets the men of the age do most of the talking, and he includes long passages from individuals like Adams, Jefferson, Hamilton, and others. In letters and speeches, we hear their words as they spoke (or wrote) them, and this gives us unique insight into their motivations and how they conceived of both themselves and their identities as political actors. Whether it’s the sometimes acidic self-pity of Adams or the overwrought rhetoric of Hamilton or the high-flown (and possibly feigned) idealism of Jefferson, these are words which echo through into our own era. 

Overall, I very much enjoyed Founding Partisans. Brands is one of those popular historians who never sacrifices rigor for accessibility, and though there are times when it can be a bit tough wading through the sometimes strangled prose of 18th century politicians. However, the advantage of including so many quotes from actual sources is that it gives us in the present a real sense of the flavor of the rhetoric of the past. Language and rhetoric are windows into the soul of an age, and Brands deserves a great deal of credit for leaning so heavily on his sources. 

More importantly, this book gives us a deep history of the phenomenon of political parties. For better and worse, they have been a part of American political life since the beginning of our republic. And, while it is tempting to see partisan rancor in the present as new, Founding Partisans reminds us that this, too, has deep antecedents. America was forged in tumult and trial and difficulty, and somehow it always managed to emerge the better for it. Thus, while it can be easy to give in to despair and apathy, to think that there is no way out of our morass, it’s helpful to look back at the past for at least some measure of guidance. While the friendship between Adams and Jefferson wasn’t perfect, it nevertheless demonstrates the extent to which it remains possible for even the most inveterate of political foes to one day find a way back to fondness. 

Let us hope that what was true for two men of the past may yet be true, to some extent at least, for those of us in the present.