Sharp offers several themes and interpretations in his analysis of politics in the decade following the adoption of the constitution. Sharp rightly argues that the antagonisms and political schisms of the years 1789-1801 were a crucial test of the ability of our new nation to survive sharply different conceptions of where political sovereignty would ultimately lie in the new nation. Sharp details the creation of "proto-parties" -- the Federalist led by Hamilton who favored a strong central government and executive power versus the Jefferson led Republicans who favored more state and local control of politics and a stricter construction of the federal government's powers under the constitution. The schism was also clearly and primarily sectional -- North versus South. While both of these comments are an oversimplification they were two of the obvious divisive issues splitting the two camps. Sharp maintains that the election of Jefferson in 1801 and the peaceful transfer of power from one faction to another -- the first such transfer of power in our nation's history (Adam's being generally seen as a proponent of the Federalists'position) -- was one of the two most crucial tests for the viability of the constitution (the other being the Civil War).

Sharp details the political machinations of both camps through Jefferson's election and clearly shows that civil war and disunion were indeed viable outcomes and the continuation of the union in limbo.

Overall this is a solid effort to dispel the myth that political parties, as we know them today, were not created or even perpetuated by the "proto-parties" that formed during this period, although they can be seen as precursors of modern political parties. He also dispels the myth that the perpetuation of the nation was inevitable. Instead that the United States survived this period intact was incredible.

My main quibble is that sometimes Sharp sometimes leaves out some key points. Nor do I think enough attention is paid to Adam's ability to straddle the two factions and steer a more neutral course -- for example advocating a strong national defense (building a navy), pursing peace with France, and thwarting Hamilton's attempt to maintain a standing army in peacetime. Had he been unsuccessful in doing so the story of our Republic may have been quite different.

In American Politics in the Early Republic: The New Nation in Crisis, James Roger Sharp focuses on a time period often ignored by American historian. Caught up in the excitement of battlefields, historians delved into the American Revolution or the intrigues of the Constitutional Convention. Yet Sharp's bold study highlights the battles which raged within Washington's administration. The war which raged between Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson provides the excitement of the battlefield. Sharp obviously has studied the genesis of the American political sytem and the development of party politics in America's first years under the U.S. Constitution. His thesis centers around the development of political party through the supporters of Jefferson and Hamilton. His insistence upon describing these units as "proto-parties" seems to be overkill. While the reader will understand that these groups did not have the organization of a political party as modern Americans recognize it, Sharp seems to believe a reader will not bother to consider political parties in any other form. This book, however, is a fascinating study of a period about which few have read. While the casual reader might find the book cumbersome, I recommend it for any studetn of early American history.