Few books have treated this topic, Madison and Washington's collaboration, and this is an excellent treatment. Unravelling the waxing and waning of this relationship serves well those interested in the Federalist Era. The scholarship is obvious, and the presentaion is good. Those interested in the unfoldings of the Republic must pay attention to the Father of the Country, and his relationship to the Father of the Constituion. Liebiger allows an enormous view of Washington's dignity as a statesman, and Madison's erudition in the realm of Constituion building, amongst other federalist era realtionships, this collaboration was as crucial as any, and a topic long overdue.

This biography by Willam Rives is essential to comprehending the massive, and understated contribution of James Madison. The dominance of writing, concerning the 1790s, seems to center on a Hamilton v Jefferson scenario. Through these pages, the recent efforts by Rosen, and others to revive the Madisonian logic, gains new merit and weight. The massive contribution of Madison, as architect, defender, and executor of the Constitution, is revealed, by a partisan, of Madisonian thought. Campebell Rives's speech before the 22nd Congress 2nd session, remains one of the most outstanding reflections of original intent of the framers concerning State v National powers in our history, which bolstered by his proximity to Madison, should be read by anyone seriously considering the issue. An outstanding must, for anyone who seriously wishes to comprehend the issue of federalism.

This book is a dignified piece of historical writing. Although it is long, it manages to be significant throughout. The personality profiles are interesting, the battle descriptions are gripping, and the political analysis is acute. Before reading this volume (and its companion), I did not realize how pivotal the events of this era were in shaping the rest of 19th century US. Recommended to those with time to ponder, especially if they are fond of Adams' writing style.

I was pleasantly surprised by this book. A nice mix of day and evening wear at the turn of the 19th century and good likenesses. It was also great to see a paper doll (Dolley Madison) who wasn't reed thin! A minor criticism would be that the color occaisionally seems clumsily applied, but overall a great book.

Madison's thoughts of many subjects from democracy to religion are insightful because it shows what the father of our Constitution believed. I would recommend it for anybody who loves Madison.

During the Civil War, James Madison Page was a prisoner in different places in the South. Seven months of that time was spent at Andersonville. While there he became well acquainted with Major Wirz, or Captain Wirz, as he then ranked.

Page takes the stand that Captain Wirz was unjustly held responsible for the hardship and mortality of Andersonville. It was his belief that the Federal authorities must share the blame for these things with the Confederate, since they well knew the inability of the Confederates to meet the reasonable wants of their prisoners of war, as they lacked a supply for their own needs, and since the Federal authorities failed to exercise a humane policy in the exchange of those captured in battle.

" The attempt by an ex-prisoner who was very accommodating toward Confederate captors to rebut other accounts of Wirz. Vehement, detailed, sometimes convincing." Nevins, Allen. "Civil War Books: A Critical Bibliography. Vol 1. Baton Rouge: LSU Press 1970. Pg.199.

This digital reprint edition was created from the original Neale Publishing Co. As Published in 1908. This titles is also available in hardcover and tradepaper editions.

Before reading this work, I looked upon it as very promising. Read, in contrast the vast majority of other historians of the era, proposes to analyze and contrast the political philosophies of four major early Americans by examining their views on the relationship between power and liberty. Thus, the author is also in effect transcending the trite republicanism/liberalism dichotomy that has domincated scholarship for decades by returning to the methodology used by the great Bernard Bailyn. Unfortunately, the author ultimately fails to execute.

Madison is the first thinker that he discusses, and along with the chapter on Wilson, this is the highlight of the book. He effectively argues that Madison was a much more consistent thinker than past scholars have made him out to be. While Madison's transformation from an ally to Hamilton during the Constitutional Convention to a strong opponent several years later has long puzzled historians, Read demonstrates the consistenty that he maintained in both positions as related through his interpretation of the Constitution and the public's understanding and perception of it. In addition to this, he also undertakes the strangely neglected task of comparing Madison with Hamilton. This however, leads the first major downfall of the study, viz. his unsound analysis of Hamilton.

To begin with, even the subtitle of this chapter is enough to arouse one's suspicions. Hamilton is characterized as a "Libertarian and nationalist." The later appelation is certainly undisputable, but the former is clearly absurd to anyone who has any idea what libertarianism actually entails. Throughout the chaper, Hamilton's supposed commitment to liberty and other traditional Whig or republican principles is given far too much emphasis with far too little substantive evidence. Along with this, Hamilton's views on Constitional and economic policy are given a shallow, sympathetic treatment, while other aspects of his life and thought are either ignored or merely glossed over. This of course, largely serves to vitiate the very promising contrast of Hamilton with Madison that he conducts.

Nevertheless, the chapter on James Wilson is quite valuable, especially since he, unlike the other 3 figures dealt with, has been prodominantly ignored by modern scholars. He shows that while Wilson was as committed to the concept of popular sovreignty as Thomas Jefferson, he believed that the proper manner to systemize this was primarily through the Federal government. Hence, Wilson, like Hamilton, was a proponent of "energetic government," because he viewed it as the proper systemization of the "energy" of the sovereign people.

Although the chaper on Hamilton was bad, that dealing with Jefferson is worse. Read, quite correctly, recognizes throughout the work that Jefferson, (unlike Madison, Hamilton, and Wilson) viewed power and liberty as polar opposites, with every increase of power entailing a proportionate decrease in liberty. T Surprisingly , however, his actual analysis of his thought is among the worst that I have ever read. He seems to make a concerted effort to make his political philosophy as nebulous and contradictory as possible. Moreover, while he cites David N. Mayer's invaluable work on Jefferson's Constitutional thought, and even states that fellow scholar Michael Zuckert helped him with the work; he utilizes the flawed and inaccurate work of Lance Banning and Richard Matthews. As a result of this, he takes up the absurd contention that Jefferson was an agrarian who opposed capitalism, and thus Hamilton and his radical vision for a new economic order.

This view, in addition to being completely unfounded, also highlights the paucity of Read's sources. Such important works as Joyce Appleby's "Capitalism & A New Social Order" and Garret Sheldon's "The Political Philosophy of Thomas Jefferson" are completely ignored.

While the analysis of Jefferson's thought is dramatically poor, perhaps the worst aspect of the work is the author's translation of views of each thinker to the politcal landscape of the late 20th century. For the first three thinkers, he manages to claim that their theories may actually be able to fit modern day circumstances. Jefferson, however, is excluded from this, given his radical views on power. In each case, he uses the common statist platitude that convictions formulated two centuries ago cannot apply to issues out of their temporal context. In the case of all of these men, even Hamilton, this argument is patently absurd, as their adherence to the principals of natural rights and liberty certainly make clear. As Jefferson once said, Nothing...is unchangeable but the inherent and unalienable rights of man." Consideration of this, among other Founding principles, has led even as staunch a Hamiltonian as Forrest McDonald to conclude the Founding Fathers would look upon the current government as tyrannical. As should be obvious, I view this work as very deeply flawed. Nevertheless, given the proper author utilizing the same methodology, this could have been a truly fascinating and valuable piece of scholarship.

Recent scholarship has revealed a much more consistent 'Madison' than some historians have granted 'The Father of the Constitution'.Scholars Rosen, Banning, and Rakove have lead the way in this regard. Reads contribution although brief is as Rakove pointed out a deft work.By highlighting the concerns Madison held about the excresent powers of the Continental Congress, amidst the environment where the Congress was frustrated from performing the assigned tasks, revitalizes and reinforces the devotion Madison held for Constituional integrity reconciling the thoughts and actions of Madison in the 1780s, to the 1790s. It is only wished this essay could be expanded, and that the author could apply a more expanded study on Madison's contributions.

Dr. James Read was a recent guest on National Public Radio. His scholarship is evident, but what he has written here is a very "user-friendly" exploration of the early American debate on the role of government, which is as pertinent today as it was in 1776.
Dr. James Read has given us a highly readable, as well as well researched, look at a question which all Americans ponder: "Is big government antagonistic to individual rights and liberties?" The discussion is framed in the context of those early American thinkers who initially set up the American system of government with an especial emphasis on Jefferson and Hamilton.
This is a very readable book that is written in straightforward prose. It presents a nice, concise history of America's early philosophical public policy issues, its greatest thinkers, and the debate in the 18th century about what form the American government would take. It is fascinating to read about the debates taking place in the hammering out of the United States' Constitution.
The book is organized into:
Power and Liberty (James Madison);
Libertarianism and nationalism (Alexander Hamilton);
Popular Sovereighty (James Wilson);
Liberty and States Rights (Thomas Jefferson).

This hardcover version of The Federalist (papers) comes is a nice package so to speak. The end of the book contains both the Declartion of Indepenence and the Constitution. Unlike most other Federalist papers books which are written as paperbacks using cheap newsprint paper, this uses a higher quality and brighter paper. The nice part about this book, unlike alotof others is that it contains the dates for each paper... alot of reproductions don't have this.

After reading the book however, I became quite concerned
because I noticed immediately that the author (intentionally or unintentionally) changed many of the words in the The Federalist!! This annoys me to no end. It's extremely bad practice for purposes of history, to change words in historical documents, because those "translated" words might accidentally get passed to future generations without aknowledgement that that wasn't what the founding fathers actualy wrote. I noticed at least a dozen changed words... there are probably thousands of errors for all I know.. This is bad, bad, bad.

Heres an example from Federalist Paper #1: (pg. 3)
This book writes: "After a full experience of the insufficiency of the existing federal government, you are invited to deliberate upon a new Constitution for the United States of America..."

Every other book in existence writes: "AFTER an unequivocal experience of the inefficacy of the subsisting federal government, you are called upon to deliberate on a new Constitution for the United States of America...."

Notice the subtle, yet immensely importance difference in words.
Now what gives this dumb author the right as a scholarly academian to change the words of our founding fathers. In fact, I don't even know which version is truly correct?? (I assume the majority rules, so this book comes out the loser.)

And these errors continue right through Federalist paper #1, and several others that I noticed... Maybe even all of them!

Also, the author has a nasty habit of decapitalising words which should be capitalized in historical conext. Our founding fathers, as was customary grammar at the time, capitalized many words in the middle of the sentance. I don't fully understand the details of antiquated English, however, when I buy a book on historical figures, I expect, nay, I demand, that the reproduction be produced in exactly the manner in which it was presented by our founding fathers. It can be difficult to understand antiquated English, especially some of the stuff written by James Madison, however, I'd rather do the mental translation myself.

It's a nice book, but I cannot in good conscience give this
anything above 2 stars. In fact, I think it deserves no stars.

NOTE: After researching the matter a little bit, it occurs to me that there are actually two common distinct "translations" and this book presents just one of them.... so I take back blaming the editor. I'm not sure of the origin of these modern translations... but it does seem that this version is much less popular than what is presented in other Federalist Paper repros.
I still claim that this version is error.

This is a very nice edition of the Federalist's Papers. An idea which was inaugurated by James Hamilton to help abate the opposition which was expected toward the newly written constitution.

This Modern Library edition has several features which sets it apart from other editions. First, the editor's introduction (by Robert Scigliano of Boston College) is quite informative and helpful for those who are just getting started in their study and research of American history. And yet it is detailed enough to be informative for those who have a stronger background in American Revolutionary history. Second, the appendices include The Declaration of Independence, Articles of Confederation and the Constitution of the U.S. along with the amendments. Third, the book has a short but nice bibliography, as well as a nice and very useful index. All these features helped to set this particular edition apart from other editions that I have owned or read.

Of course, the Federalist writings are some of the key writings in American Revolutionary history. Every American should be required to read them since they were written with the intent of promoting the ratification of the constitution. These writings contain the ideas and development of the American system of government, the separation of powers, how congress is to be organized, and the positions of the executive, judicial, and legislative branches of government. This work provides its reader with the thoughts, inspirations, and brilliance behind the American Constitution and development of American government.
I highly recommend this edition of the Federalists.

Seeking to reprise his earlier success with The Last of the Mohicans, James Fenimore Cooper went on to write several other tales built around his heroic character Natty Bumppo (called "Hawkeye" in Mohicans and "Pathfinder" in the book of THAT name). In this one our hero is known as "Deerslayer" for his facility on the hunt and is shown as the younger incarnation of that paragon of frontier virtue we got to know in the earlier books. In this one, too, we see how he got his most famous appellation: "Hawkeye". But, this time out, our hero comes across as woefully tiresome (perhaps it's because we see too much of him in this book, where he's almost a side character in Mohicans). Yet some of Cooper's writing skills seem sharper here (he no longer avers that Natty is the taciturn type, for instance, while having the fellow forever running off at the mouth). But, while there are some good moments & excitement, this tale really doesn't go all that far...and its rife with cliches already overworked from the earlier books. The worst part is the verbose, simple-minded self-righteousness of our hero, himself, taken to the point of absolute unbelievability. He spurns the love of a beautiful young woman (though he obviously admires her) for the forester's life (as though he couldn't really have both), yet we're expected to believe he's a full-blooded young American male. And he's insufferably "moral", a veritable goody two-shoes of the woodlands. At the same time, the Indians huff & puff a lot on the shore of the lake where Deerslayer finds himself in this tale (in alliance with a settler, his two daughters, a boorish fellow woodsman, and Deerslayer's own erstwhile but loyal Indian companion Chingachgook -- "The Big Sarpent," as Natty translates his name). But the native Americans seem ultimately unable to overwhelm the less numerous settlers who have taken refuge from them in the middle of Lake Glimmerglass (inside a frontier house built of logs and set in the lake bed on stilts). There is much racing around the lake as Deerslayer and the others strive to keep the few canoes in the vicinity from falling into the hands of the tribe of marauding Hurons who have stopped in the nearby woods on their way back up to Canada (fleeing the American colonists and the British at the outbreak of English-French hostilities -- since these Hurons are allied with the French). And there are lots of dramatic encounters, with some deaths, but the Indians seem to take it all with relative equanimity, while trying to find a way to get at the whites who are precariously ensconced out on the lake. (It seems to take them the better part of two days, for instance, to figure out they can build rafts to make up for their lack of canoes -- and why couldn't they just build their own canoes, in any case -- and how is it they don't have any along with them since it's obvious they'll have to cross a number of waterways to successfully make it back to the homeland in Canada?) The settler and the boorish woodsman, for their part, do their stupid best to attack the Indians unnecessarily, getting captured then ransomed in the process, while Deerslayer and Chingachgook contrive to get the loyal Indian's betrothed free from the Hurons (it seems she has been kidnapped by them -- the reason Deerslayer and Chingachgook are in the vicinity in the first place). In the meantime the simple-minded younger daughter of the settler (Cooper seems to like this motif since he used a strong daughter and a simpler sister in Mohicans, as well) wanders in and out of the Indian's encampment without sustaining any hurt on the grounds that the noble red men recognize the "special" nature of this poor afflicted young woman (Cooper used this motif in Mohicans, too). In the end there's lots of sturm und drang but not much of a tale -- at least not one which rings true or touches the right chords for the modern reader. Cooper tried to give us more of Hawkeye in keeping with what he thought his readers wanted but, in this case, more is definately too much. --- Stuart W. Mirsk

Had "Deerslayer" been James Fenimore Cooper's first "Leatherstocking" tale -- who knows? Maybe it would have been his last! But his mythic hero, Nathaniel Bumppo (a.k.a. Natty, Deerslayer, The Long Carrabine, Hawkeye, et. al.)had such a mid-19th Century following that Cooper was practically guaranteed an eager, receptive audience for his tales.

I won't say straight out that "Deerslayer" is a terrible book. If nothing else, Donald Pease's introductory essay informs us of several plot complexities that are intertwined with Cooper's personal life, such as the re-invention of Natty Bumppo to buttress and justiry Cooper's real-life legal property claims. But, if "Deerslayer" is not a terrible book, it is for hundreds of pages something less than scintillating. Why? I think it comes down to this. Patient readers can endure quite a lot of moralizing, or wide swaths of verbosity. But put the two together and it's hard to endure.

The story takes place on Cooper's real-life ancestral home, Lake Otsego in mid-upstate New York (my friends tell me the pronunciation is "Otsaga" with a short "a") where we first encounter a youthful Natty Bumppo and his unlikely fellow traveler, Harry "Hurry" March, an indestructible, Paul Bunyonesque figure whose credo can be summarized as "might makes right." Natty (given the sobriquet, Deerslayer, by his adopted Delaware tribe) has arrived at the lake to join his companion, Chingachgook, (the "Serpant"), in his quest to liberate his future bride, Wah-ta-Wah, who was kidnapped by a band of Huron Indians. Harry March has come to the lake to capture the heart of Judith Hutter, who along with her father, Thomas, and simple-minded sister, Hetty, live on the lake, occupying either a floating ark or a fortress-like structure built upon the lake.

Eventually, the Hutters are surrounded by dozens of fierce Huron warriors, who are on the warpath during the opening days of the mid-18th Century French & Indian Wars. Seemingly, it was all there for Cooper to capitalize on: just a handful of isolated white settlers, whose only protection from scalp-seeking, torture-minded skulking Hurons is a crank sailing craft or a lake home on stilts. But Cooper rejects his own dramatic setting to stage a morality play, and a heavy-handed one at that.

A word about the Hutter sisters. Diametrically opposed siblings are at least as old as the Bible, and Cooper employed them in several novels, including "The Last of the Mohicans" and "The Spy" (far superior works than "Deerslayer".) Hetty is Cooper's example of purity and innocence, but we can leave her to the Hurons, who display an admirable level of respect and reverence for the frail-minded girl. I suspect she would have fared much better in the hands of so-called savages than in the typical 18th Century colonial settlement. It is her vain, beautiful and high-tempered older sister, Judith, whose character is of more interest, and requires in my opinion a little rehabilitation.

It is never made explicit by Cooper (no doubt it would have scandalized his audience) but I think it's fair to say that Judith Hutter -- much to her regret later on -- granted her last favors to at least one colonial British officer (maybe several.) And, if this is a mis-reading of the text, she most certainly did "something" to set the colonial tongues a wagging. Whatever her "failings", they would not be recognized as such by modern day readers (perhaps her vanity and self-centeredness would go unnoticed as well.) There was, however, little tolerance for a Judith Hutter in the 18th Century, and Cooper would have never permitted Natty Bumppo -- young, virginal and selfless -- to fall in love with this high-spirited young woman. (Besides, it would not have chronologically tied in with his future exploits.)

But I'm not entirely convinced. Judith Hutter possesses several admirable traits, not the least of which is intelligence, bravery and a certain loving devotion to her frail sister. She also recognizes Natty Bumppo's virtues, as well as her own faults, and is more than willing to embrace the former and cast off the latter. Her love for Natty is obvious for hundreds of pages, but somehow he doesn't quite get it! In the end, the girl must swallow her pride and make explicit what even modern day women would find nearly unthinkable -- she makes an outright marriage proposal. Alas, Natty Bumppo is simply "too good" for her.

To use a modern day expression, Cooper is over the top with the virtuous Natty Bumppo. At some point, self-abnegation is just another form of narcissism -- only more complex than the garden variety of narcissism possessed by Judith Hutter (and other mere mortals.) In his introductory essay, Donald Pease points out that the rejection of Judith Hutter balances the brutal rejection Natty Bumppo receives at the hands of Mabel Dunham in an earlier Leatherstocking tale, "The Pathfinder". Maybe. But consider this. To honor his parole from the Hurons, Natty Bumppo chooses torture over Judith Hutter. And, ultimately, he chooses a famous rifle over her -- a gift she lovingly gives to him in recognition of how much he would appreciate such a weapon. It comes down to this: torture and guns over Judith Hutter! Hmmm.... I'll leave that one for modern day psychologists.

I've given "Deerslayer" three stars because Cooper is, after all, one of our nation's early literary masters, and "Deerslayer" is not without its moments. There's a wonderful give-and-take scene between Natty Bumppo and the Huron Chief, Rivenoak, as they negotiate the release of Thomas Hutter and Harry March. (My advice to modern day corporations: don't bother with negotiation consultants -- save your money and read Chapter 14.) And for those who still believe in the right of every American to bear arms, take it from the author who created our nation's first true literary sharpshooter. There's a haunting, prescient admonishment about leaving loaded guns lying about the house (pages 219-220.)

Cooper's final Leatherstocking Tale, The Deerslayer, depicts young Natty Bumppo on his first warpath with lifelong friend-to-be, Chingachgook. The story centers around a lake used as the chronologically subsequent setting for Cooper's first Leatherstocking Tale, The Pioneers. Tom Hutter lives on the lake with his daughters and it is here that Deerslayer (Bumppo) intends to meet Chingachgook to rescue Chingachgook's betrothed from a band of roving Iroquois. A desperate battle for control of the lake and it's immediate environs ensues and consumes the remainder of the story.

Throughout this ultimate Leatherstocking Tale, Cooper provides Natty much to postulate upon. Seemingly desiring a comprehensive finality to the philosophy of Bumppo, Cooper has Natty "speechify" in The Deerslayer more so than in any other book, though the character could hardly be considered laconic in any. Though the reason for this is obvious and expected (it is, after all, Cooper's last book of the series), it still detracts a tad from the pace of the story as Natty picks some highly inappropriate moments within the plot to elaborate his position. And, thus, somewhat incongruently, Cooper is forced to award accumulated wisdom to Bummpo at the beginning of his career rather than have him achieve it through chronological accrual.

All things considered, however, The Deerslayer is not remarkably less fun than any other Leatherstalking Tale and deserves a similar rating. Thus, I award The Deerslayer 4+ stars and the entire Leatherstocking Tales series, one of the better examples of historical fiction of the romantic style, the ultimate rating of 5. It was well worth my time.

Matthew specializes in pseudohistory books for New York's limousine liberal crowd. This book is a downright distortive pseudohistory that dwells on one Madison quote and inteprets Madison's whole political philosophy as some proto-authoritarian republican advocating a strong central government and "Machiavellian" politics to maintain "stability." The author essentially muddles his own socialistic, authoritarian philosophy on politics with that of James Madison. He tries to reintepret the history of the Presidency of Madison along these lines.

This work is truly goundbreaking. The comparison of the liberal/commercial views of James Madison with the radical democratic views of his close friend, Thomas Jefferson are truly enlightening. Matthews shows how Madison was closer to Hamilton than to Jefferson in political philosophy. Madison was obsessed with balance, and order in the liberal tradition. Jefferson,on the other hand, had a vision of radical democracy in the republic. Ward republics, and local democracy were infused into Jefferson's thought. Madison was more concerned with balancing the interests of society and controlling "factions". He viewed government from a more Hobbsian view than other Jeffersonians.Madison was far less trusting of human nature and more concerned with "stability" in society than with experiments in government. This book goes against the grain of current scholarship which unites Jefferson and Madison in philosophy when in fact in many ways they were poles apart. A great book.

If Men Were Angels is as "poor" a book as reviewer "Joseph (see more about me) Schulman" thinks, why is it that Gordon Wood gave it a favorable review in the New York Review of Books? Moreover, it received praise from several leading historians including Jack Greene and Forrest McDonald. Perhaps open minded readers might come to different conclusions about this book.