Orchestrating the Second American Revolution

This is a very good book; it is short, thoughtful,pointed and easy to read. Ellis demonstrates that after the War, there was no consensus in the general public for the establishment of a new nation in which the colonies would be subject (in any respect) to the authority of a central government. In short, colonists rallied to revolution, but not to nationhood. Ellis argues that the evidence shows that forming a corporate nation was the vision and the work-product of a few good men, but only a few. Ellis shows that these men did not set out to enshrine "American values." On the contrary, these few were pursuing pragmatic and practical considerations as to how the colonies would need to cohere in order to be a going concern with whom Europeans could have reliable political and commercial relations. The gist of the argument is unabashedly elitist, as other reviewers have aptly stated.
However, I would soften that criticism in this way. In the Eighteenth Century the general populace believed far more readily than today that the Elite should lead and Elitism lacked the pejorative sting that it has today.The idea of the "wisdom" of the American people took a long time to develop and to some it is still a work in progress. This book is an important reminder of what a principled and unselfish Elite can accomplish for the people. Hopefully, this message will find its way to today's Elite, some of them need to step up. If they do, this book shows that they'll be in good company.

The Quartet is Joseph Ellis' history of the six years leading to the crafting and adoption of the Constitution of the United States. There are 220 pages of text in the print edition, three appendices, notes, bibliography and index. Ellis' focus is on the four individuals most responsible for the creation of this seminal American document: Washington, Hamilton, Madison and Jay. The book is elegantly and concisely written, and, though this is a widely studied topic, insightfully presents a great deal of new material. I read this work in just two sittings and I am astounded by Ellis' important and convincing conclusions relating to modern interpretations of the Constitution.

One of Ellis' objectives in writing Quartet is to recover and reinterpret the "and then" part of this historical timeline, as in "Americans declared Independence in 1776 and then adopted the Constitution to establish a new government." That "and then" period was actually a twelve year slog to an improbable conclusion which secured our independence and set the course for national success.

One surprise in this account is the key role of John Jay, who is rarely mentioned as a founder of our republic. Jay negotiated the peace treaty with Britain and singlehandedly more than doubled our territory by extending U.S. borders to the Mississippi. This territory needed a strong government to oversee settlement and governance, and finally convinced the political class that The Articles of Confederation were in need of reform. He also contributed to the Federalist Papers and worked tirelessly to win approval of the proposed Constitution in New York, a key (and recalcitrant) state afflicted with a parochial political machine.

Ellis also removes the aura of the sacred from his portrait of the creation of the Constitution. For example, he points out that Madison wrote the Bill of Rights not as a expression of high political philosophy, but as a pragmatic device to head off calls for a second convention to amend and possibly kill the constitution. All the same, he resists cynicism and shows the Quartet to be genuine patriots and selfless public servants.

Ellis relates all this in a very literate style. He notes for example, that interpreting this premodern society using our modern constructs is like trying "to plant cut flowers." This comment introduces insights into the reason slavery was not an issue that could have been resolved in the Constitution at its crafting (Short answer: There would have been no Constitution had the issue been raised). There are also occasions of humor, as when President Washington asks congressman Madison to ghostwrite a message to Congress, and Congress unaware of the author, asks Madison to write a reply.

Perhaps most controversially, Ellis challenges the idea of interpreting the Constitution using the original intent of the founders as a guide, for how is this possible when the founders believed that the document should be reinterpreted, as Jefferson wrote, "as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered"? Ellis uses newly published material related to the correspondence of representatives to the Confederation Congress and records of the mostly overlooked proceedings of state ratifying conventions to bolster his conclusions.

In a recent interview with CBS News, Ellis acknowledges his preoccupation with this period (Founding Brothers--Pulitzer Prize, American Sphinx--National Book Award) and sheepishly suggests that it is time he move on. I hope that he reconsiders and once again peers into those dark eighteenth century rooms and enlightens us as to their true contents. Perhaps he will elaborate ideas from Quartet and explain why John Jay was truly a founding father or will explain Madison's stunning reversal from a strong government nationalist to become a Jeffersonian democrat. In the meantime, I recommend that you read this book.

Startling - to me at least - and revealing very readable review of an important time in the "life" of the United States. Well written and informative - fills in the blanks between 1776 and how the US really works

A MUST read! The "For score and seven years ago ..." reference by Abraham Lincoln is not true. We did not become A NATION until after the struggles of The Quartet and the acceptance of the Constitution by the 13 independent countries who fought for independence. Only then did we become A NEW NATION.

Amazing history. Read it during the two weeks prior to our 2016 election.--It showed everything--and nothing--politically has changed, but our founders had moments of exceptional foresight and brilliance.

This is the way history should be written. An unapologetic account of what happened to ratify the Constitution 11 - 12 years after the 1776 signing. Where historical preservation has been lost, he makes it a point to inform the readers that it is only speculation. That's always been important to me.
The four protagonists (George Washington, John Jay, Alexander Hamilton and James Madison) are depicted in a realistic manner as they try to bring the 13 sovereign States of early America into a unified federal democracy. The birth of America as a nation was not in 1776 as we all mistakenly proclaim. It was after much deliberation and compromise during the 1787-1788 congressional debates. Joseph Ellis makes you feel the struggles these founding fathers endured in their struggle to bring all the existing and future States together while making you realize that it was a different time and things were done outside of our present day ideas of right and wrong. An excellent book and I highly recommend it to any fan of historical novels.

A convincing account of the transition from the Articles of Confederation to the Constitution as our governing principles. This period is often dealt with in a hurry, but Ellis explains clearly the thought, persuasion, and conflict that produced our national government.

Very good insight on how, why, and final results on determining why we have a constitution and how our nation was established in spite of polarized desires and need for compromise. Without compromise and sacrifice this nation as we know it today would not exist and we should cherish the founders for its success.

See my full review at http://www.coastalbreezenews.com/2015/09/04/the-quartet-orchestrating-the-second-american-revolution-1783-1789/

Ellis argues that it was Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, James Madison and George Washington who forged the United States of America by force of their prestige, personality, political power, planning and preparation. Each of the four had extensive experience with the perils of government under the Confederation Congress, which was essentially impotent. Most of us know of Washington’s desperate situation as commander of the Continental Army, when his persistent pleas for supplies and recruits were unfulfilled. We all learned about Valley Forge as school children. Hamilton was Washington’s aide, and he too recognized that the colonists had won the war in spite of the Confederation Congress and that a stronger union was essential to the survival of all. Jay and Madison worked within the Confederation Congress and found its continued existence after the war untenable. All four saw that those who sought reform of the Articles under which the congress operated did not go far enough. Indeed, a new governmental framework must be developed.

This is a beautiful book and would make a great gift for anyone who loves history or loves this country.

This book was informative and well-written. I learned a great deal from it! However, I think it's mis-titled. While Ellis tries to talk about the contributions of all four men, the lion's share of the book is his take on Madison. The book, while thought-provoking, is really more of an essay than pure history. Ellis does not just present facts, but interprets and inserts his opinions, clearly wfiting from a particular bent, ie, to present the founding fathers as "big government" guys. So as an essay, it is very void and he supports his points eell. But pure history it is not.

"The Quartet: Orchestrating the Second American Revolution" tells the story of how four of our Founding Fathers (George Washington, James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and John Jay) "conspired" to rescue the United States from the consequences of an ineffectual "Articles of Confederation" that threatened to fragment and doom the newly-born United States to death in its crib. These four leaders, with help from Robert Morris, Gouverneur Morris, and Thomas Jefferson, created a new, strong Constitution when most states, citizens, and politicians feared a strong central government that might be an American version of the British central monarchy and abusive control. Succeed they did. A fascinating tale of a concept, a constitutional convention, and a priceless document: the U.S. Constitution. As they say, "the rest is history!"

Gave it 5 stars because it is an excellent summary. I have enough background to fill in most of the blanks but thought this was a good and
brisk encapsulation of the events. I have a friend interested in the presidents but not yet much of a reader so I couldn't wait to finish it so I could loan it to him.
I found it odd in the last few pages when he got on the right to keep and bear arms and concluded that the original proposal containing the part about a well regulated militia made it beyond a doubt referring to arms owned and controlled by state militias. He then takes a slam at Scalia in
the final footnote 37 at Scalia for his Heller decision for concluding an individual right to own guns.He wraps up by knocking "original intent"
as a legal concept that would be completely foreign to the authors of the constitution. I wonder if he had a mortgage on his house and the mortgage company changed the contract on the basis of modifying a term by redefining the meaning if he would be happy. It was just too
obvious he was grinding an ax without convincing argument. I still gave it 5 stars but advise readers to ignore the last few pages. Jim Benefiel

A wonderful read that enlightens the reader to the politicking and the exhausting work that the framers undertook in the process to create a new constitution and to transform the thirteen colonies into a cohesive thirteen state nation.

A well written, but an overall shallow presentation of the "Second American" Revolution. It's common knowledge that the Articles of Conderation were a failure due the complete lack of a central government. But Ellis seems to go on and on stressing this point. I would have liked to have seen him go into the economic issues at the time in more depth.

This is a fun, easy book to read. But definitely not one of Ellis' best.

I gave this book three stars for three reasons:

1) The author takes a few, rather odd, modern political pot shots, which I found out of place in a book that otherwise doesn't engage in modern politics. It was distracting and distasteful; I didn't buy his book on the founding fathers so he could scold me for my modern political views.

2) The author seems to contradict himself in several spots, taking the side that suits his point at the moment. It's like he didn't read his own book.

3) The author begins with the point that the nation wasn't "brought forth" in 1776; not even the very idea of a nation. But that the nation, and the idea of a nation, was created between 1783 and 1789. He goes on to cite numerous examples that work against this premise, making his efforts to prove his point seem labored. To make matters worse, the first part of this thesis seems unnecessary and minor to the overall theme of the book that the "Quartet" made a major contribution in shaping this nation. In other words, he seems to have had an idea for a great intro for his book, and, even after it wasn't working for him, he refused to let it go. Why didn't he just remove it in the editing process? All I can figure is that he must have really loved the introductory anecdote.

All that said, I did learn quite a bit of history, so I gave the book three stars.

This is the period that most history classes gloss over as the curriculum shifts from Revolution to Constitution with only a very brief mention of the Articles of Confederation and no acknowledgement that it was a total failure. This book looks at some of the key players in the development of The Constitution and the difficult process of getting to and through the transition from Articles to Constitution. While reading the details support my thoughts that most of the problems we have with the federal government to this day are linked to the transition. We still hear about "States Rights" and associated elements of the Articles as if they are part of The Constitution (they aren't) and we still have both the state based parochialism as well as the individual anarchists that hates a strong central government. We haven't resolved these issues yet and may never fully accept The Constitution without asserting that principles of the Articles still apply.

Outstanding account of the 4 men who created the U.S. Constitution despite widespread opposition to establishing any strong central government at all.Rescues John Jay from the obscurtiy in which he has languished for 2 centuries.

Fascinating review of the Constitutional Convention; the planning and execution of it during a very fragile and highly political period after the Revolutionary War. Brilliant strategists and highly intelligent individuals.

Can't say enough about how important a role George Washington played in the beginning of our country. Also, this book provided numerous insights into the role played by John Jay as well as the motivations and tactics of all the Founding Fathers.

A must read. Addresses the new nation applying concepts of the day and not through the ideas of today. Shows how easily the Revolution could have been in vain and the dedication of the quartet in forging a new nation through compromise and determination.

Very readable book, interlaced with author’s conclusions which he asserts are supported by his reading and synthesis of facts from various scholars and sources. There are occasional appearances of liberal bias. The main opinion related to modern situation is that, regarding the Constitutional interpretation based on “original intention”, is not valid and explicitly the 2nd Amendment Heller decision is wrong and that 2nd Amendment only applies to the militia based on a Madison draft of what would become the 2nd Amendment, that was never passed by Congress. The “original intent” doctrine is based on the understanding of the makers intent of an agreement as it came to be ratified in its final form, not on some intermediate draft. Ellis assertion on this point does not have merit.
Similarly, the author asserts that the Philadelphia Convention delegates exceeded their authority and the Articles of Confederation (AoC), Article XIII, regarding unanimity for ratification was violated. It does not appear that he has read the commissions of the various states that were issued before February 21, 1787. Nor did he take into account that seven states had answered the call to Philadelphia, from Annapolis, before the Articles Congress acted to endorse the call. Nor that the Philadelphia Convention informed Congress and sent them a copy of the draft plan and that AoC Congress forwarded that plan to the states for ratification, thereby complying with AoC Article VI section 2 regarding entering into agreements among the states. The Philadelphia Convention was called outside the bounds of the Articles of Confederation not under its provisions. He does, however, assert the progressive era positions regarding economic motivations of the founders, described by Beard and Jensen, has been thoroughly discredited and are without merit. He also document the total failure of the AoC as an instrument upon which to govern and that its replacement was viewed as a crisis by the Quartet. One can only speculate what would have happened had the Philadelphia Convention failed or if the U.S. Constitution had not been adopted.
Ellis accuses the colonists “… of a policy of genocide in slow motion, in which the march of white migration was accompanied by an artillery barrage of microbes that cleared the way.” This phrase implies that the white people knowingly used, to put the implied modern term to it, “germ-warfare” against the native population. White colonist knew no more about ‘microbes’ than the Indians did. He then goes on to accuse the colonist of deliberately obscuring the facts of westward expansion allow “…focus on the beneficiaries rather than the Indian victims.” Ellis uses the language of eastern establishment victim-hood to impugn all things associated with expansion. What choice did anyone have once the Americas were discovered and immigration commenced? Life happens. This section does not enhance his work for this reader. To view this episode through modern eyes with the elitist attitude is not useful to understanding our history.
Ellis humanizes George Washington to an admirable extent. Washington is no longer the silent sphinx but is reveled through his letters to be essential to the creation of the Constitution. Washington also appreciated his impact on events. He does not want to waste that impact on losing propositions. The author also helps to illuminate the character and role of John Jay, a founder who has not received much popular recognition. His treatment of Hamilton is consistent with other accepted assessments. Madison is, however , described as both a great political philosopher as well as, when the need arises, a remarkably able and thorough political strategist. Madison’s views on the federal system evolve, from the beginning of the Philadelphia Convention with his drafting of the Virginia Plan in conjunction with his fellow founders prior to the first meeting, through ultimately, the final ratification of the U.S. Constitution. Madison came to recognize that had the provisions he originally demanded been included, the Constitution never would have been ratified by the State Conventions.
The chapter end notes are worth the read. Some of them explain the author’s conclusions or highlight exceptionally worthwhile reference works cited.
The book provides some insights that parallel today’s political situation. Except for a few, what I consider to be, basic historical errors, this book provides useful and thought provoking information. Do your own fact checking if some assertions seem jarring to you.

A part of American history that is not well known and fits well in the run up to the "Federalist". A must read for anyone interested in our revolutionary history and the creation of our Federal system.