Reddit mentions: The best us revolution & founding history books

As I said in the podcast, I'd be posting a bibliography. You can find a much more extensive one here, but for a briefer one speaking mainly just to the topic of the Podcast, namely dueling in the United States with a focus on political encoutners, here is the limited edition "Greatest Hits" release:

• Ayers, Edward L. & John Mayfield & Todd Hagstette, eds. The Field of Honor: Essays on Southern Character and American Identity. University of South Carolina Press, 2017: Particularly several chapters in “Part II: Honor, Violence, and the Law”, and “Part III: Defining the Man - Honor and Character”.
  
• Bruce, Jr., Dickson D. Violence and Culture in the Antebellum South. University of Texas Press, 1979
  
• Fleming, Thomas J. "Duel: Alexander Hamilton, Aaron Burr and the Future of America": Very lively book and fun to read even if a bit overly "Popish", it focuses specifically on the relationship between Burr and Hamilton in 1803-1804 as they march towards their "interview". Would certainly recommend to anyone looking for a book-length treatment of the duel.
  
• Freeman, Joanne B. Affairs of Honor: National Politics in the New Republic. Yale University Press, 2002: Concerned with a broader look at American politics in the early United States, Freeman devotes part of the book specifically to the Duel and its place within the world of politics at the time. The key chapter on this front can also be found in an earlier version, see below.
  
• Greenberg, Kenneth S. Honor & Slavery: Lies, Duels, Noses, Masks, Dressing as a Woman, Gifts, Strangers, Humanitarianism, Death, Slave Rebellions, the Proslavery Argument, Baseball, Hunting, and Gambling in the Old South. Princeton University Press, 1996: The book is as excellent as its name!
  
• Greene, Evarts B. 1927. “The Code of Honor in Colonial and Revolutionary Times with Special Reference to New England.” Publications of the Colonial Society of Massachusetts 26: 367–89: Old but solid, Greene's article remains heavily cited as one of the "go-to" pieces with regards to the origins of dueling in the United States.
  
• Hopton, Richard. Pistols at Dawn: A History of Duelling: If you are looking for a decently written and researched pop history introduction, this is the book for you! Providing a general overview of the history of the duel in Europe, while it has its small errors and simplifications, all in all, it provides a solid survey for someone who doesn't want to jump into more academic works yet.
  
• Moore, James T. 1975. “The Death of the Duel: The Code Duello in Readjuster Virginia, 1879-1883.” The Virginia Magazine of History and Biography 83 (3): 259–78.
  
• Olson, Christopher J. Political Culture and Secession in Mississippi: Masculinity, Honor, and the Antiparty Tradition, 1830-1860. Oxford University Press, 2002 Schneller, Mark G. Invisible Sovereign: Imagining Public Opinion from the Revolution to Reconstruction. Johns Hopkins University Press, 2015.
  
• Rorabaugh, W J. 1995. “The Political Duel in the Early Republic: Burr v. Hamilton.” Journal of the Early Republic 15 (1): 1–23: A good, concise evaluation of the Burr-Hamilton Duel in political context.
  
• Stevens, William Oliver Pistols at Ten Paces: The Story of the Code of Honor in America. Houghton Mifflin, 1940: While a bit dated, it is an unfortunate fact that solid, book length treatments of dueling in the United States are few and far between. While falling into the common fault of over emphasizing anecdote common to older books on the duel, it nevertheless is a good read.
  
• Steward, Dick. Duels and the Roots of Violence in Missouri. University of Missouri Press, 2000
  
• Stowe, Steven M. Intimacy and Power in the Old South: Ritual in the Lives of the Planters. Johns Hopkins University Press, 1990.
  
• Wells, C.A. Harwell. 2001. “The End of the Affair? Anti-Dueling Laws and Social Norms in Antebellum America.” Vanderbilt Law Review 54 (4): Focused most specifically on dueling, legally, and its decline in the United States.
  
• Williams, Jack K. Dueling in the Old South: Vignettes of Social History. Texas A&M University Press, 1980: A nice, short book that looks at the duel in the American South.
  
• Wyatt-Brown, Bertram. Southern Honor: Ethics and Behavior in the Old South. Oxford University Press, 1983: An (the most?) important work on the study of antebellum culture in the American South, looking at the duel, and the wider society in which it belonged. See also "Honor and Violence in the Old South which is an abridged version focused more on the role of violence specifically in the life of the Southern gentleman.
  
  Also, I haven't listened back through the podcast as like most people it isn't like I can stand hearing my own voice, but off hand as far as error corrections, I know I messed up at least one thing, confusing the date of the Cilley-Graves encounter and placing it in 1826, the year of the Randolph-Clay duel which also touched on Congressional privilege. Cilley-Graves was in fact in 1838. Quite possibly a few other mix-ups in there which I blustered through, but that one at least struck me practically the moment after wrapping up, so thought to point it out.

I have no problem with his work being used as a supplement as, I agree, we shouldn't sweep our mistakes under the carpet. As was said by George Santayana, "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it".

However, to your point on calling him revisionist. Perhaps you are correct that historians, typically weren't actually there so it's technically their version. But, this doesn't mean that facts can be presented more or less accurately or with an intended agenda behind them that distorts. Take the following passage in the beginning of Chapter 4 on the American Revolution. I would argue that it may not be revisionist but it sure is way outside the mainstream and incredibly disingenuous. See Gordon Wood and David McCullough for just 2 historians who I feel present a FAR more accurate portrayal of that time period.

“Around 1776, certain important people in the English colonies made a discovery that would prove enormously useful for the next two hundred years. They found that by creating a nation, a symbol, a legal unity called the United States, they could take over land, profits, and political power from the favorites of the British Empire. In the process, they could hold back a number of potential rebellions and create a consensus of popular support for the rule of a new, privileged leadership.

When we look at the American Revolution this way, it was a work of genius, and the Founding Fathers deserve the awed tribute they have received over the centuries. They created the most effective system of national control devised in modern times, and showed future generations of leaders the advantages of combining paternalism with command.”

For understanding modern world history, Eric Hobsbawm is the best starting point.

• The Age of Revolution: Europe 1789–1848
  
• [The Age of Capital: 1848–1875] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Age_of_Capital:_1848%E2%80%931875)
  
• [The Age of Empire: 1875–1914] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Age_of_Empire:_1875%E2%80%931914)
  
• The Age of Extremes: The Short Twentieth Century, 1914–1991
  
  Hobsbawm is a Marxist historian and it shows in his work. But even the deeply conservative Niall Ferguson wrote that "his great tetralogy . . . remains the best introduction to modern world history in the English language."
  
  The other modern world history I want to mention is [The Birth of the Modern World] (http://www.amazon.com/Birth-Modern-World-1780-1914/dp/0631236163/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1374136637&sr=1-1&keywords=birth+of+the+modern+world). It offers another perspective on the "long 19th century" and, as it is written by a very conservative historian forty years after The Age of Revolution, a nice contrast/counterbalance to Hobsbawm's work.
  
  [A History of the Middle East] (http://www.amazon.com/History-Middle-East-Peter-Mansfield/dp/0143034332/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1374137117&sr=8-1&keywords=history+of+the+middle+east) is a great introduction to Middle Eastern history and politics which is unbiased, factual, and comprehensive.
  
  [The Great Chinese Revolution 1800-1985] (http://www.amazon.com/Great-Chinese-Revolution-1800-1985/dp/006039076X/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1374137415&sr=1-2&keywords=great+revolution+china) is an excellent book on the birth of modern China. In it, John King Fairbank tries to show the dynamism of Chinese society and that western forces have had much less influence than the western historians who have framed the traditional story seem to believe.
  
  US History
  
  
• [The Radicalism of the American Revolution] (http://www.amazon.com/Radicalism-American-Revolution-Gordon-Wood/dp/0679736883/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1374137693&sr=1-1&keywords=radicalism+of+the+american+revolution)
  
  
• [The Market Revolution: Jacksonian America, 1815-1846] (http://www.amazon.com/Market-Revolution-Jacksonian-America-1815-1846/dp/0195089200/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1374137774&sr=1-1&keywords=the+market+revolution)
  
  
• [What Hath God Wrought: The Transformation of America, 1815-1848] (http://www.amazon.com/What-Hath-God-Wrought-Transformation/dp/0195392434/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1374137821&sr=1-1&keywords=what+hath+god+wrought)
  
  
• [Reconstruction: America's Unfinished Revolution, 1863-1877] (http://www.amazon.com/Reconstruction-Americas-Unfinished-Revolution-1863-1877/dp/0060937165/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1374137863&sr=1-1&keywords=reconstruction)
  

Oh, I've got some good books in this category. I took an Anglo-American Constitutionalism class during undergrad, which had some great readings on the American Constitution.

Plain Honest Men by Richard Beeman

Creation of the American Republic by Gordon Wood

Peripheries and Center by Jack P. Greene

The last two are awesome, awesome books that really changed the way I thought about early America and the creation of the Constitution.

As a future social studies educator, my other suggestion would be to find a history teacher at your school who is really passionate about the subject and ask them about what they read and how they read. One of the most important things in learning about history is how to read history correctly. Or, if a university is near by, e-mail professors who study a topic that you're interested in and see if you can correspond with them or talk to them. They may lend you free books, too!

You are clearly a “true believer” in your own system, because you are defending an abstract concept with passion and vigor. Not necessarily a bad thing, but own up to it, because that's what you're doing and that's what you advocate; a non-existent system; you know, like heaven or nirvana. With that said, let’s try to grapple with a couple chunks of your reasoning.

First off, it's not bullshit. You are advancing a theoretical model that has, by your own admission, never existed. So then, how is one supposed to critique this model in a way that you can't defend in some equally rhetorical way? One probably cannot, therefore it's on par with a religious ideology. However, I’m going to give it a try, because I like to think people have the ability to change positions when confronted with new arguments.

On the Roman bit, I’m not critiquing that you didn’t write a thesis, I’m saying you lack nuance because you clearly don't know what you're talking about, yet insist on debating me on the particulars of a system of which you lack a sufficient amount of knowledge; again much like a religious argument against something like evolution.

Patronage was the dominant societal glue that transcended the fall of the republic into the era of empire. That’s not just my position, that’s the position of almost every Roman scholar who has written on the topic. Further, the only scholars that I’ve read who disagree are also the ones who also believed in the genetic inferiority of the “barbarians.”

“Corruption” is like the devil/Satan of your way of thinking. It’s a throwaway term that can be used to vilify everything, but actually means nothing. On that note, monarchy is still the norm, and I'd bet you'd agree, but the problem is that you agree for the wrong reasons. A strong executive branch was central to the Roman Republic and it is central to our own system, because the framers were essentially obsessed with the Roman model. In fact, the attendees of the Constitutional Convention debated the merits of a triumvirate, when figuring out how the Executive branch would function. So, in saying it was outside the scope of the debate, I was attempting to allow you to politely bow out of a topic in which you are outclassed. It is well within the scope, but I just don’t suppose that the finer points can be debated meaningfully until you attain more knowledge on the topic. Rest assured “corruption” is not really the answer you think it is.

So, you see, your understanding of Roman history doesn't require a thesis, but guess what? Corruption is baked into the entire system. The Constitutional framers knew it, just as the Romans did. Corruption is part of the political process, and arguably is the political process itself.

Now, let’s move away from Rome, and talk about your proposition itself. Am I defending our democracy as it stands? Of course not; it has many problems. However, you’re seemingly more interested in rhetoric than logic, so let’s play the rhetorical game. Democracy is bullshit, because the people don’t know their ass from a hole in the ground. Guess who ordered that Socrates be put to death? Guess who wanted to maintain segregation in the south? Guess who has stood in the way of LGBT rights? It wasn’t a monarch, the corporate system, or any other abstract evil; it was the people.

Now more rhetoric: What system has higher quality? I’d say your model is totally lacking in quality, because it would assure majority rule. You think of the people in highly vaunted terms, but you should not. The people are every bit as tyrannical and misguided as the leaders that they elect, and that’s the true problem with our current system. Our government is designed, in part, to safe guard the minority against the very system you advocate. Could the civil rights bill have been passed with your system? No. Nor could any of the other laws founded on progressivism. The majority doesn’t know shit about shit. PERIOD. Your majority rule concept is shallow, but that’s no matter, because you know in your heart of hearts that you’re right. You know; just like the religious.

“actually, yes it does. my approval +50% of people.” Okay, so do I really need to point out the flaw here? You say we don’t have a democracy, then say you plus 50% is required for approval. I struggle to articulate the silliness of this statement, so I guess I’ll merely say that you know exactly what I was saying. You advocate a non-existent system, yet democracy has and does still exist. Therefore, your definition is completely irrelevant. Also, what if me plus 50% agreed you’re totally wrong? Would you still be wrong, or would you suddenly advocate Gandhi’s position that “the truth is still the truth in a minority of one?” Hmmm…

So, have I come across as a condescending dick? Yes. Is there a purpose behind it? Yes. I believe a lot of the same things you do, but when you run around talking about invisible chains and the subverted will of the people, you make progressives look just as dogmatic as ultra conservatives, because you are advancing a belief, not a logical argument. Below is a list of books I’d suggest you read, if you really, REALLY want to know about the topics upon which you currently so freely expound, and the ones which have informed my viewpoint. Your dogmatic tone and the fact that I have little faith that your viewpoint is changeable makes me trust that you’ll need to have the last word on the topic, so I’ll give it to you. However, I do implore you to actually allow the holes in your way of thinking to bother you… at least some day.
Here’s the list
http://www.amazon.com/Fall-Roman-Republic-Penguin-Classics/dp/0140449345

http://www.amazon.com/The-True-Believer-Movements-Perennial/dp/0060505915

http://www.amazon.com/Brilliant-Solution-Inventing-American-Constitution/dp/0156028727

http://www.amazon.com/The-Fall-Roman-Empire-Barbarians/dp/0195325419

The American Constitution itself is really considered the first of it's kind. There are many things that influenced the Constitution, and gave the Constitution it's name.

The founding of the American Republic - and the constitution - was strongly influenced by the Roman Republic. The framers studied classical history extensively and often looked at the "Constitutio" which where edicts, decrees and rescripts that governed the Roman Republic and later empire.The Roman constitution was not a single document, but rather a series of precedents and traditions that formed the structure in which the government operated. Later the Roman Emperor declared the Constitutio Antoniniana, which granted citizenship to freemen living in the Roman Republic.

I believe (and I am a American history student, not a roman history) that using the term to describe the core laws that was popularized by Livy's Ab Urbe condita which described the history of the Roman Republic. Later the term described edicts from the emperor, and the most important decrees by the Pope (Apostolic constitution) starting in the 1570s.

The idea of the constitution being a legal contract was influenced by Jean-Jacques Rousseau's Social Contract. The Magna Carta, which restricted the powers of government, and the "British Constitution" which like the roman Constitution was mainly tradition based were also influential, and led to the idea that authority could be granted by agreement rather then by princely authority.

The early colonies where created on the basis of charters that granted colonies under the authority of the government of England. In 1630, the settlers of Connecticut formed their government not based off of the external charter, but instead drafted the "Fundamental Orders." When the colonies declared independence, they chose likewise to replace the defunct charters with documents, which they called "Constitutions"

Sources -
Ab Urbe condita - http://www.forumromanum.org/literature/livius/trans1.html
The Social Contract: http://www.constitution.org/jjr/socon.htm
The Radicalism of the American Revolution: http://www.amazon.com/Radicalism-American-Revolution-Gordon-Wood/dp/0679736883
The Creaton of the American Republic: http://www.amazon.com/The-Creation-American-Republic-1776-1787/dp/0807847232/ref=pd_sim_b_2?ie=UTF8&refRID=0CZ9HPT323HSRGHGG1WG
Ancient Rome in America: http://shc.stanford.edu/news/research/ancient-rome-america
The Founders and the Classics

There are so many great books on the subject, depending on what you want to look at specifically. For the period you mention I will give you two books to check out, but I would suggest going back and reading about things long before the revolution also like Braddock's March: How the Man Sent to Seize a Continent Changed American History by Thomas E. Crocker.

A great book that gives some good detail on the lead up to the change from the Articles of Confederation to the Constitution is *The Quartet: Orchestrating the Second American Revolution, 1783-1789 by Joseph Ellis. It gives a lot of good information about why the Constitution is shaped the way it is.

A fun book that gives some back story on the 39 people who ended up signing the Constititution is Signing Their Rights Away by Denise Kiernan and Joseph D’Agnese. They also did the book Signing Their Lives Away: The Fame and Misfortune of the Men Who Signed the Declaration of Independence

This is my favorite:

https://www.amazon.com/Founding-Brothers-Revolutionary-Joseph-Ellis/dp/0375705244

Another, very predictable one!

https://www.amazon.com/1776-David-McCullough/dp/0743226712/ref=pd_lpo_sbs_14_img_0?_encoding=UTF8&psc=1&refRID=Z1QBK7D5EDQXNGWDEABX

This one was surprisingly good, but I read it a long time ago:

https://www.amazon.com/Redcoats-Rebels-American-Revolution-Through/dp/0393322939/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1524103441&sr=1-1&keywords=redcoats+%26+rebels+the+american+revolution+through+british+eyes

Basically a kids book but I LOVED it!

https://www.amazon.com/Ordinary-Courage-Revolutionary-Adventures-Joseph/dp/1444351354/ref=sr_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1524103555&sr=1-3&keywords=plumb+martin

This too! (Actually embarrassing, but again, a GREAT read! Probably totally supports your point as this list grows!)

https://www.amazon.com/Yankee-Doodle-Boy-Adventures-Revolution/dp/082341180X/ref=sr_1_4?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1524103555&sr=1-4&keywords=plumb+martin

https://www.amazon.com/Liberty-Revolutionary-Began-Landmark-Books/dp/0375822003/ref=sr_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1524103676&sr=1-3&keywords=liberty%21

Here's one I started and never finished but was looking very interesting:

https://www.amazon.com/Radicalism-American-Revolution-Gordon-Wood/dp/0679736883/ref=sr_1_17?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1524103778&sr=1-17&keywords=history+of+the+american+revolution

Edit: /r/PoliticalPhilosophy had a discussion on this here

***

There's such a wealth of books I'm nervous to share, as I know I'll have missed 'the' book for many republicans.

• I'd start off with old Tom Paine first though, this book here seems to give a good overview and won't break the bank (the US version here).
  
  
• Philip Pettit is also a highly influential republican, who was consulted by Zapatero's government in Spain, as an example of his influence. 'Republicanism: A Theory of Freedom and Government' is a good place to start (The American Amazon has quite a steep price, but there is a preview of it on Google)
  
• I'd also recommend Quentin Skinner, who has revised interpretations of a lot of historical republicans. He gave a Q&A on a related subreddit before /r/republicanism had 'taken off'.
  
  On the exercise of political republicanism in real life I would recommend:
  
  
• This BBC radio programme and this book on the Republican ideals of Britain.
  
  
• Someone from this subreddit has recommended this book on republicanism in France before, but I've yet to have a chance to read this.
  
  
• There's also a short article on implementing Republicanism in contemporary Spain and a topical and practical (but maybe not so relevant to the political philosophy) book called 'Dictatorship to Democracy'.
  
  I know this isn't complete, as I'm hoping to see what others have, in their minds, as important reading for republicanism.

I love Robert Ingersoll. Susan Jacoby has some great books, one of them is called The Great Agnostic, which is a biography. It's great, I highly recommend it!

While we are on the subject, my nom de plume originated from Jacoby's Freethinkers: A History of American Secularism, which is also an excellent book.

This. Hamilton preferred an even stronger central government but this was the best he was going to get so he agreed to sign. Technically signing wasn't an endorsement. The last article was carefully written so that the signers were merely witnessing that it had been adopted by the unanimous consent of the states present as opposed to all of the men in each state delegation. This was an attempt to get the dissenters add their names as well.

Miracle at Philadelphia is widely praised and very readable but it is also filiopietistic. It's worth the read but for a fuller understanding of the constitional convention I recommend Decision at Philadlephia.

He mentions Gordan Wood multiple times, and he is most well known for his Pulitzer Prize winning book, Radicalism of the American Revolution. In that book, his thesis is that the American Revolution was truly revolutionary and not just the conservative transference of power from one ruling class to another. I'm about to graduate with a history degree, and if there is any specific period or subject you'd like some info on, I'd be happy to point you in the right direction.

Several years ago, in an effort to better understand that side of the aisle, I took a coworkers advice and borrowed Common Sense to read over the summer. While there was certainly a lot of content I didn't agree with it was overall a well written book, and he went through great lengths to explain why he felt the way he did. It actually opened my eyes to the real problems of gerrymandering and how effective it is at marginalizing large groups of individuals in a voting population.

Point being, Beck has always been a very intelligent person and the character you saw / heard on his show was just that, a character. While he is absolutely a devout conservative, I think he's capable of being much more reasonable when he isn't paid to be a jerkoff. Something tells me that's the case with a lot of media personalities, which is what makes them so reprehensible.

Plain Honest Men: The Making of the American Constitution is a fantastic play-by-play of the Constitutional Convention and really clarifies just how fragile the Union actually was at that point.

Madison and Jefferson in which I sensed a lot of love and admiration for the two key figures on the part of the authors, but the history is definitely there as well.

Edit: I forgot what sub I was in. I should come prepared with better sources first, but I spent too much time writing this to delete it.

My actual source was this book as well as a few history and political science courses. Madison was one of the chief authors of the federalist papers and he spilled the beans about what went on during the convention later in his life (along with Jefferson and Adams), so the public perception of what went on is really biased towards what those people said about it since most other people didn't say much at all, and Madison's account always emphasizes Madison's role as the grand architect. But Madison had also been drafting his ultimate plan for a grand American government using meticulous notes long before anyone started talking about replacing or amending the Articles of Confederation. The plans he went in with did not call for a federal government, though; it called for a national government wherein there were no longer states at all and the president had vast amounts of power. The New Jersey plan, which is said to have been "rejected", was really the impetus to revise Madison's plan into a federal government where the legislative branch would be dominant branch instead of a just a check on the president's power, and where only those powers specifically granted to the federal government (primarily regarding issues of commerce and defense across state lines) were delegated away from the states. Madison's plan already had two branches of congress, so the Senate just sort of became the NJ plan's congress with the House being Madison's idea of a a legislature. To me, that's a very different kind of government than what really was basically an elected king with an ineffectual congress. Although I suppose as the power of the federal government has grown over the years, American federal government really is more of a national government since we've interpreted what is meant by "necessary and proper" and what is "interstate commerce" to such a degree that the supreme court has [almost]
ruled that a federal law prohibiting guns within x feet of an elementary school is considered "interstate commerce".

I think this is an informative answer, but I'm going to point out that you shifted terminology in an important way. The question asks if the U.S. is an "empire." Your answer is about "imperialism." These are analytically differentiable—the former is a governance/sovereignty structure the latter is a type of foreign policy. Hans Morgenthau (Politics among Nations) would chide you for conflating the two. (The unflaired commenters below also make this mistake.)

Can you have a non-imperialist empire? Yes. Can you have an imperialist non-empire? Yes.

As far as the OP's question, you can certainly make the argument that early U.S. expansion was conceived of as constructing an empire. Even an "empire of liberty" as Thomas Jefferson put it. Pop historian Niall Ferguson makes this kind of argument as well in his book Colossus.

Structurally a federation and an empire are somewhat analogous. It's no secret that the Romans copied the Achaemenid satrapy structure for their own empire, and the the Founding Fathers leaned heavily on their readings of the Romans when conceiving of the political theory foundation for the U.S. Constitution. The difference would be the location of sovereignty and the means by which the federation/empire is constructed. For the Achaemenids and Romans it was conquest by the imperial forces. For the United States it was first settlers, filibusterers, and corporations, and then eventually the federal army. The incorporation of a new state wasn't through conquest (the prospective state and the Congress had to vote on accession), but the acquisition of new territory was through conquest. There are parallels and analogies between early U.S. expansion and the traditional land empires (another interesting parallel is with the Russian Empire's expansion, which used remarkably similar liberal means to expand across Eurasia in the 1700s/1800s). But the construction of sovereignty was different in the case of the U.S. than in traditional empires of conquest and tribute.

A simple recommendation is "A Brilliant Solution" by Carol Berkin https://www.amazon.com/Brilliant-Solution-Inventing-American-Constitution/dp/0156028727. I would also recommend reading a biography of someone like Thomas Jefferson or James Madison. Personally I really enjoyed "Becoming Madison" by Michael Signer. It's interesting to hear about the debates that occurred between individuals we consider the "Founding Fathers" and how many of them actually deeply despised each other for much of the 1780s.

Tons of great historians that don't 100% disagree with Chomsky, but provide an alternate perspective. Great way to build a world history and world politics narrative that covers all perspectives.


Here are two off the top of my head:


Dr. Daniele Bolelli's History on Fire series counters Chomsky's views on Theodore Roosevelt. Worth a listen: 1 2 3


Empire of Liberty (by Gordon Wood) has an extensive history on the early American Republic that seems to be more fair regarding our Founding Fathers and the US.

gotta love how beck writes a book and calls it "inspired by thomas paine", a man that was a classical liberal, supported free public education and social security, and criticized organized religion. I still struggle to accept that so many millions of americans can be so irrational.

For people like me who want this, here's a link to Amazon.

You can also get copies of the Bill of Rights and, of course, the Declaration of independence for $25 total (+shipping). Pretty nice deal for nice hardcovers like these.

if anyone wants to learn more about what matt’s talking about, the book “The Framers’ Coup” is a great place to start. it’s explicitly anti-framer and spend a lot of time talking about how yeah, the framers were focused on being able to secure and protect their money from the common people

Definitely. Check out this lecture by historian Joanna Freeman on her famous book "affairs of honor" which gives a fascinating perspective into the culture of honor dueling in America.

It's more complicated than that. The 2nd Great Awakening began in the decades following the Revolution, so while the founders were one of the least religious generations in American history, the generation immediately following was one of the most religious.

In order to remain relevant, the members of the founders who were struggling to still remain relevant in American politics began to make, often misguided and half-hearted, attempts to appear religious. So, you can quote mine people like Jefferson during this period for religious appeals.

Gordon Wood's Empire of Liberty covers the time period pretty well, if anyone is interested.

I've recently been reading The Measure of God by Larry Witham. It covers the history of the European science-religion debate using Scotland's Gifford lectures as a backdrop. It's fairly short, and each chapter covers new developments either in the hard sciences or soft sciences that initially challenged the faith and how Christian thinkers responded. It's a good introduction to many of the issues that believers and unbelievers try and tackle and should introduce you to some of Europe's and America's best thinkers who have worked on these issues. Skepticism and American Faith by Christopher Grasso is also very similar in that it covers how early Americans reacted to and dealt with things like Darwinism and other scientific advancements.

> just like America was 200 years ago.

You mean like during the Whiskey Rebellion? The United States has never been a place of liberty without aggression. Many Founding Fathers were intentionally aggressive. Think about the Quartet, for example.

I would agree, and I think what has become is an increasing awareness that elements of the government in the US are vehemently opposed to constitutional processes. While - for a while, they were able to operate "closer to the surface" of open policy and activity, now we don't even here about processes or programs. We just see a massive data center go up here, or there and without a clue why? But this is not conspiracy crap, maybe NSA is doing some worthwhile shit , but as a citizen I have no clue about that, and maybe I don't even want one.

But at the ground level, I have a major problem with the public representatives , cops, congressmen and similar becoming increasingly dismissive of even basic civility and civics.

In this way, I think that my perception is well founded. By way of example I would say, when you look across the "left/right" spectrum we are encouraged to frame everything in, the "Oath Keepers" at the end of the day - have FAR, FAR more in common with hackers, people concerned about civil rights than might at first be considered obvious. But freedom and respect for laws are principles that most of these institutions would hold as self evident.

I don't think that most of these institutions or core constituencies are particularly consistent in their thinking or policies, and they may not even think of themselves as proper organizations but rather as loose citizens groups.

I suspect further that unless and until , we stop watching MTV, worrying about our Cold Stone Creamery flavors and really decide to "man up" (no offense meant) as a nation and realize we are STILL entitled to participate in our electoral process, we stand to watch our republic and our prospects for mass-prosperity falter.

I really do like the way Richard Dreyfuss put it here, so I would strongly encourage my fellow citizens, to stand back from the militarist abyss of violence and choose something better, do the hard work of getting informed, skill up legally, learn of the ghosts that haunt us and get involved, and turning the ship of state as we the people see fit.

True, but I think the analysis is pretty clear. For example Freethinkers by Susan Jacoby.

In addition to the Constitution read the Federalist Papers.

The Federalist Papers In Modern Language: Indexed for Today's Political Issues is a pretty good book. Reading the original papers is fine, but the language is a little harder to understand. Especially Hamilton. He was rather wordy among other things. Speaking of Hamilton - Hamilton's Curse is a good short read.

Sure thing.

I first came across the discussion about the origin on this podcast:
http://www.decodedc.com/154-2/

I also highly recommend reading Joseph Ellis’s book, “The Quartet”, which gives an excellent discussion about the process of how the Constitution came to replace the Articles of Confederation.
https://www.amazon.com/Quartet-Orchestrating-American-Revolution-1783-1789/dp/080417248X

These two sources were the most impactful to me, and there’s been many other sources here and there that have helped fill in between the lines. I live in Richmond, VA, where numerous historical markers show just how big of a deal slave revolts were to the founding society.

I’m currently reading “The Second Ammedment: a Biography” by Michael Waldman.
https://www.amazon.com/Second-Amendment-Biography-Michael-Waldman/dp/147674744X

It wasn't videotaped but there's a good book on the subject:
http://www.amazon.com/Plain-Honest-Men-American-Constitution/dp/1400139856
It' short, easy to read, and details the constitutional convention day by day, from notes taken by attendees, pricipally James Madison.

Even Christopher Hitchens admits this was an attempt to portray the United States as less religious than it actually was, given it was a treaty made to Muslim nations. In short, it's not a good argument to use to show the US was not founded on religious principles.

Link

"Of course, those secularists like myself who like to cite this treaty must concede that its conciliatory language was part of America’s attempt to come to terms with Barbary demands."

This book also verifies the fact.

Just do some reading for context before you reference something like this. It's a common historical error.

Here are all the local Amazon links I could find:


amazon.co.uk

amazon.ca

amazon.com.au

amazon.in

amazon.com.mx

amazon.de

amazon.it

amazon.es

amazon.com.br

amazon.nl

amazon.co.jp

amazon.fr

Beep bloop. I'm a bot to convert Amazon ebook links to local Amazon sites.
I currently look here: amazon.com, amazon.co.uk, amazon.ca, amazon.com.au, amazon.in, amazon.com.mx, amazon.de, amazon.it, amazon.es, amazon.com.br, amazon.nl, amazon.co.jp, amazon.fr, if you would like your local version of Amazon adding please contact my creator.

Hmm , who be selling GB's book again ?

There appears to be a hilarious name calling war raging over the one star versus five star Amazon.com book reviews , lol !

Mean while back on the New York Times best seller list , it is marked purchased by the pallet load , lmao !

If you're going to read the Constitution and the Federalist Papers, I think you also need to at least skim:

1. The Articles of Confederation
   
   
2. The Anti-Federalist Papers
   
   
   I think there's a dangerous tendency to view the founding documents as if God gave them directly to James Madison, when in fact the Constitution was fundamentally a reaction to problems with the Articles of Confederation, and faced some significant opposition at the time.
   
   I also think the Constitutional Convention notes are super interesting, although this is getting pretty far afield from OP's question. http://teachingamericanhistory.org/convention/summary/
   
   u/eplinx, to help place all these primary documents in context, you might also read something like Decision in Philadelphia, which basically turns the Constitutional Convention into a story.

> You do realize that the second amendment never mentions being able to overthrow our government and that is not at all what its intended purpose was right?

It doesn't have to mention it, just like the other Amendments in the Bill of Rights don't have to enumerate their every use case in detail. You can read the writings of the founders at the time to fill in the context, which are overflowing with references to John Locke, to the point where the founders would casually invoke him to support an argument much like we'd do with the founders today (see: The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution pg 28).

Locke wrote extensively on the right to revolution and was an obvious inspiration when the founders wrote in the Declaration of independence that people have a natural right to "alter or abolish" "any Form of Government [that] becomes destructive."

> It does specifically state the Militia can be called upon by the President to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions.
>
> ...
>
> The whole purpose of the 2nd amendment was to allow local branches of government to form militias ...

The prefatory clause of the Second Amendment doesn't limit the operative clause, i.e. it's not restricted to militia use. That was obvious from writings of the time but thanks to Heller that's now been legally clarified too.

> Even with all the automatic weapons being fully legal they would have no impact on tanks and little to no impact on aircraft. Drones would be able to wipe out any real revolution pretty quickly. You would need to legalize missiles on private aircraft to even stand a slight chance. You would need rocket propelled grenades and surface to air missiles to even start to combat to power of our current military. The idea we could take out our government by forceful insurrection is laughable today and only held to by those without a clue on how the real world works.

Weird how we got thrashed in Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan then

See also https://i.imgtc.com/D7G0hkG.png

George Mason at the constitutional convention was fervently against the Bill of Rights for the reason that people might think those ten are the only rights Americans had. So the 9th amendment was a compromise. Not sure it worked though.

This book is a fantastic way to learn more about the constitutional debate: A Brilliant Solution

A couple of quotes. Would today's conservatives agree?

Thomas Jefferson:
>Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions of property in geometrical progression as they rise. Whenever there is in any country, uncultivated lands and unemployed poor, it is clear that the laws of property have been so far extended as to violate natural right. The earth is given as a common stock for man to labour and live on.

WHAT? No flat tax???

Thomas "Common Sense" Paine: (Agrarian Justice)
>Paine proposed a detailed plan to tax property owners to pay for the needs of the poor, which could be considered as the precursor of the modern idea of citizen's income or basic income. The money would be raised by taxing all direct inheritances at 10%, and "indirect" inheritances - those not going to close relations - at a somewhat higher rate;

Do I remember Glenn Beck writing a book about how GREAT Thomas Paine was?
http://www.amazon.com/Glenn-Becks-Common-Sense-Control/dp/1439168571

There is a bunch of competing theories on this, but I recommend checking out Bernard Bailyn's Ideological Origins of the American Revolution.

A very good read, primarily based off of an analysis of colonial pamphlets and writings. He argues that while the colonists' intellectual history could be traced back to English Common Law and classical antiquity,the main thrust of the colonists' brand of Republicanism came from early eighteenth century English Whig opposition thought, which was also very critical of Parliamentary encroachment and called for the type of Republicanism that was found in the pamphlets circulating around the colonies in the years leading up to the revolution. He also spends some time on colonial conspiracies, when the colonists saw every action by the Crown as a deliberate attempt to take away their liberty, whether that was actually the case or not.

Also, the fact that the Crown essentially left the colonies alone for decades gave the colonies a sense of political and economic freedom that, when threatened after the Seven Years' War, propelled them to push back.

Once the war was won, colonial leaders applied the theories of the past and reformulated them to fit the unique situation in the colonies, and in doing so – creating their own theories concerning sovereignty, representation, and constitutional rights – they created their own revolutionary ideology.

I'd recommend starting with Solomon's Builders by Christopher Hodapp. Founding Fathers, Secret Societies by Dr. Robert Hieronimus would be a good followup.

If you really want to delve into the older history, The Origins of Freemasonry: Scotland's Century, 1590 to 1710 by David Stevenson is your best bet.

If you really want to understand the secrecy angle - read The Craft Of Intelligence by Allen Dulles, It's not about Freemasonry, but the tools and tactics are the same. Secret Societies and the Intel Community have a lot in common.

> How long did it take you to research all those quotes?

-- I honestly don't recall. I did it whenever I had free time, or during down time at work. So it was a few hours here and there. Overall, it took about a week and a half. But I'm a bit compulsive in my editing.

> Are there any books I could read that would give me insight into what the founding fathers had in mind for this nation?

-- I wouldn't know, although someone in this thread suggested Freethinkers: A History of American Secularism.

Yeah, yeah! There is already a book out that we could promote it with too!

I simply COULD NOT agree more with the OP (johnboy15). Case-in-point: the one part of the Republican Party with integrity -- however kooky they may seem to some, they do have integrity (Ron Paul & Co.) -- are now being co-opted by the liars. Fox News and Co. has set up Glenn Beck as the way to shepherd Paulites into the "mainstream" Republicans fold. This is because they know if Republicans were actually conservative, the whole gravy train -- the handouts to big business, the wars for Israel, the splintering of the electorate over nonsense issues like abortion -- would come to a screeching halt.

1. Ron Paul supporters use this flag as a symbol? So what does Glenn Beck use as the symbol of his new 9.12 project?
   
   
2. Ron Paul supporters revisit Thomas Paine's classic work? So what does Glenn Beck use his pulpit to write?
   
   
3. Ron Paul is the first mainstream figure to start criticizing the Fed and one of his biggest supporters is Peter Schiff? Glenn Beck invites who on this show to say "The Fed got us into this mess"?

You might consider how the original intent of the drafters may have been shaped by their recognition that the future of America required aggressive westward expansion. That thought came to me after reading The Quartet, which describes how and why Washington, Hamilton, Madison, and Jay "conspired" to replace the ineffective Articles of Confederation.

Good luck!

Well it did and it didn't. Considering that the US had the most egalitarian government in the world at the time (afaik), that (most) white men could vote was already a huge step. We tend to think of the American revolution as being one of the haute-bourgeosie (especially compared to the petty bourgeoisie of the French revolution), but most Loyalists were explicitly of the old European aristocratic class. The American revolution, then, was arguably one that was more long-term damaging to the ancien regime because, well, it did actually allow those "white landowning men" to vote.

Also, that completely ignores the divisions amongst the founding fathers. There were both radical voices (a la Jefferson) who wanted more devolution to the common man, and nigh-reactionary voices (a la Hamilton) who either wanted an American Monarchy or at the very least a government that was almost wholly separate from the individual.

There's a book I'd recommend on the topic, Gordon Woods' The Radicalism of the American Revolution. It's a little behind the times on the scholarship, but insofar as we have a consensus on how much the American revolution actually moved the needle towards human liberty it's really a lodestar.

Susan Jacoby wrote a great book on secularism in American history starting with the founding fathers called [ Freethinkers ] ( http://www.amazon.com/Freethinkers-A-History-American-Secularism/dp/0805077766#productDescription_secondary_view_pageState_1427832238040 )

From Colony to Superpower: U.S. Foreign Relations since 1776. As the title suggests, the book goes beyond the last 100 years, but if that's all you want to read about, it's easy enough to start in the middle.

Freethinkers: History of American Secularism

Great book. Starts with the role of secular elements in the formation of the US, and then goes on to talk about their role in emanicipation, woman's sufferage, and civil rights.

Here is what Google has found for me. Note that all I could do was match the the cover images so I can't be certain that these are the same books.

https://www.amazon.com/Declaration-Independence-Little-Books-Wisdom/dp/1557094489

https://www.amazon.com/Constitution-United-States-Little-Wisdom/dp/1557091056/

ISBNs are listed on each page for ease of searching. It also appears there are other books like this too. Here is a different link to change things up.

https://www.applewoodbooks.com/cw_ProductSeries.aspx?k=Little+Books+of+Wisdom

The early republic wasn't really my field, so I think all the relevant books are out in the garage. I'm wracking my brain trying to come up with some of the better volumes I read as an undergrad, but nothing's coming to mind, except for From Colony to Superpower by George Herring.
(A weighty tome; it's pretty handy as a general reference, since it covers a lot of ground, but it's not ideal for what you're asking. Probably also why I remember it offhand. It lives on my shelf.) I'm not sure I can really recommend it for you, but it does cover a lot of this.


At the moment, being a bit tipsy and disinclined to fight raccoons in the cold and dark, what I'd suggest is looking into a book on the Jay Treaty. If you can find a decent one—and I'm sorry I can't be more help—that should cover the nature of a lot of the shape of Anglo-American relations in the wake of the revolution. It's earlier than the period we're talking about here, but it's an excellent place to start when trying to parse out America's position in the world in the early days.

I'd suggest saying away from biographies; most biographies of figures from that period are little more than hagiography.

I'm sorry I couldn't be more help. If you want anything between the Civil War and the end of WWII, I can probably be more useful.

Thanks for the piece. Gray's book sounds interesting - I might pick it up in the future. There was also a recent book published on the history of American skepticism: https://www.amazon.com/Skepticism-American-Faith-Revolution-Civil/dp/0190494379

Listen to an interview with the author here for an introduction: https://newbooksnetwork.com/christopher-grasso-skepticism-and-american-faith-from-the-revolution-to-the-civil-war-oxford-university-press-2018/amp/

These are few nonfiction books that I've enjoyed reading this year:

Proust Was a Neuroscientist by Jonah Lehrer

America's Constitution: A Biography by Akhil Reed Amar

In the Land of Invented Languages by Arika Okrent

The Radicalism of the American Revolution by Gordon S. Wood

Well, I would highly recommend renting some textbooks on American politics, American political history, and American political theory. Perhaps start here and work your way up: http://www.amazon.com/Logic-American-Politics-Samuel-Kernell/dp/1568028911

If you find textbooks too dull, then here is a good list of books to get you started:

http://www.amazon.com/Complete-Federalist-Anti-Federalist-Papers/dp/1495446697/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1453181599&sr=1-1&keywords=federalist+and+anti-federalist+papers

http://www.amazon.com/Democracy-America-Penguin-Classics-Tocqueville/dp/0140447601

http://www.amazon.com/The-Ideological-Origins-American-Revolution/dp/0674443020

http://www.amazon.com/Black-Reconstruction-America-1860-1880-Burghardt/dp/0684856573

http://www.amazon.com/The-Nine-Inside-Secret-Supreme/dp/1400096790

http://www.amazon.com/Congress-Electoral-Connection-Second-Edition/dp/0300105878

http://www.amazon.com/What-Should-Know-About-Politics/dp/1611452996

http://www.amazon.com/The-Race-between-Education-Technology/dp/0674035305

http://www.amazon.com/Capital-Twenty-First-Century-Thomas-Piketty/dp/1491534656

*If you actually take the time to read these, you will be better informed than 99 percent of the voting public. <-- And after you read these, that sentence will terrify you because you will realize each of these books is just an introduction, and the world is being run by technocrats. JK, but not really.

Edit: But really.

I just found them on Amazon for about $10 a piece. I've never actually owned a copy and when I told my pet bald eagle that, he cried. Thank God for One Day shipping!

Constitution:
https://www.amazon.com/dp/1557091056/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_i_T4Z0CbV6979HE

Declaration of Independence: https://www.amazon.com/dp/1557094489/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_i_k5Z0CbV4R9BPH

Freethinkers by Jacoby. I found it quite interesting.

This one is good: Freethinkers: A History of American Secularism

The Age of American Unreason is actually by Susan Jacoby; Dawkins only provided a book jacket quote. I have read and would recommend Freethinkers: A History of American Secularism, also by Susan Jacoby.

I just pulled that from memory of various things I read, but there have to be decently sourced books out there about the ratification of the constitution. American historians pore over virtually every letter people sent during that period.

This new 880-page book looks like it probably fits the bill. It popped up when I googled the sanctions against Rhode Island. It looks scholarly, complete, and well-written, but I wouldn't expect libertarian content. For something smaller, here's a writeup of Rhode Island's ratification (pdf).

If you can copy and paste,why can't you use a Ctrl + F function to search for yourself.

Maybe picking this up would be easier for you since you don't seem to have one in your mom's basement with you:

https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/1557091056/ref=mp_s_a_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1511821140&sr=8-2&pi=AC_SX236_SY340_FMwebp_QL65&keywords=us+constitution&dpPl=1&dpID=41KtZOa1oOL&ref=plSrch

If we're doing recommendations I'd like to throw out The Quartet by Joseph Ellis. He did a deep dive on 4 major contributors to The Constitution. What it meant at the time and how difficult it was to even consider. John Jay, George Washington, James Madison, and Alexander Hamilton are explained in detail different things they did help the cause.

I wouldn't recommend that book. If you'd like a factual, well-researched look at the masonic significance of the District, I'd recommend Solomon's Builders by Chris Hodapp (who also wrote Freemasons for Dummies). I can't comment on the DVD, since the link was broken.

I have to take an oath like this every year as an appointed member of a town board. I bring this book. Everyone else uses a bible.

As far as his writings go, I recommend this Book.

Power, Faith and Fantasy is a well-written and very relevant account of American involvement in the mid-east.

Race and Reunion is perhaps more of a cultural text, but it explores the Civil War and its lasting effects on our national identity.

Radicalism of the American Revolution is a great look at that era and the philosophical underpinnings of America.

And there's always Noam Chomsky, who writes illuminating books about past and present American policy.

A beginner may want to start with "Decision at Philadelphia," which is one of the more readably written accounts of the convention, and doesn't sacrifice too much for it. If you want to go more in-depth, find something which contains or at least excerpts James Madison's own notes-- for example, "The Constitutional Convention: A Narrative History from the Notes of James Madison," which I believe takes the notes themselves and presents them in a somewhat more readable format.

Ah, then you want to read "Freethinkers" by Jacoby, and you should learn about the Comstock Laws.

Enjoy...

https://www.amazon.com/dp/1557091056/ref=cm_sw_r_em_apa_G8vHybFNDDSJT

https://smile.amazon.com/Federalist-Papers-AmazonClassics-Alexander-Hamilton-ebook/dp/B075173F15/ref=sr_1_1_twi_kin_2

From Colony to Superpower

Empire of Liberty

I think we should all read Common Sense

https://www.amazon.com/Constitution-United-States-Little-Wisdom/dp/1557091056

Here's where you can buy them.

Perhaps Ch 1 in "Freethinkers: A History of American Secularism" by Susan Jacoby

http://amzn.com/0805077766

Glenn Beck has already tainted that name.

I still can't believe he invoked the name of Thomas Paine, and "common sense" to boot.

Not a big fan of the man overall.. but do read his book, "Common Sense".

I'd also recommend Wood's The Radicalism of the American Revolution. It's very much about social and demographic conditions that affected the structure and philosophy of colonial society before and after the war. As far as how Americans thought of community I think it's a slam dunk. He goes very in detail about how things like the family unit changes, how Americans viewed the hierarchical class structure, and how they perceive and expand upon republican ideas about government post-war.

https://www.amazon.com/Radicalism-American-Revolution-Gordon-Wood/dp/0679736883

Honors History degree. I would recommend Ideological Origins of the American Revolution. Talks about the change of mindset from the beginning of the revolutionary crisis to after the war.

https://www.amazon.com/Ideological-Origins-American-Revolution/dp/0674443020

The article argues that our current political battles go back to the civil war. But I'd say the North / South divide goes back to the very beginning or close to it. If you read 19th century American history [(here's an especially fine book about it)] (http://www.amazon.com/Empire-Liberty-History-Republic-1789-1815/dp/0199832463) it's striking how little the arguments about government have changed in America's history.