American Creation Review Alexandria Farrar AP Us History October 9, 2011 For a nation based on a gigantic ideology, it seems necessary

there must be a giant behind it. It seems that something as immense as a nation whose cultural structure is gaining a global consensus as the ideal governmental form cannot simply be shaped by strong-willed but flawed people, almost irritatingly reminiscent of ourselves. This need to find giants I saw best illustrated in a quote on the classroom wall from Bill Clinton hosting Nobel prize laureates, stating that no amount of genius had been there in the white house since Thomas Jefferson dined alone. Thomas Jefferson has had his vain, conniving, and racists moments, that in reality do not catch the light radiated on icons very well. What Americans need to come to terms with is the fact that there may not have been some grand painter, or even collection of painters, to shape the American landscape that seems to be increasingly more impressive the more it is studied. This notion is the essence of American Creation, a book that shows the mishaps and slips of what we thought were iron feet and that the course of thought and deliberation as well as convenience and coincidence were truly the masters at the heart of a nation. The book the American Creation starts off with the section the Founding. Essentially the Founding is discussing the question of how did they do it?, they being the founding fathers. The first argument starts off with a desire for fame. They knew that they were at the head of an emerging nation, and how they acted would go down in some sort of history. Thus, how they behaved themselves would be judged by the future and selfless deeds were motivated (ironically) more by self-interest than by a character simply born with certain virtues. They support this by the dedicated preservation of revolutionary writings. Why else would your papers have to be so carefully collected and filed, unless you wanted a very specific picture of you to be derived from them? Also, certain actions point to this motivation. Thomas Jefferson had it edited out himself the opinion that the French revolution would be a bloodless revolution. It turned out to be quite otherwise. Another hypothesis is that the strength of Enlightenment ideas possessed was bound to have effect and so it did in the new nation that was America. However, we see that the nation still had an individual character. It was simultaneously not democratic, but not aristocratic either. Most characteristic was the presence of true social mobility. Though it took effort to be at the top, and the top did necessitate wealth to some extent, anybody who

could put that effort in to be wealthy was allowed in. In this way, we see new money gaining power over the old money ideals of Europe. This ended up being a very delicate place in political time that was exploited in the 18th century, leading to revolutionary heroes that were however less than completely democratic. Benjamin Franklin himself once stated that a pro-Feminist position he had once held in a certain argument had been more in sport and for the sake of debate than as an argument for something morally valid. The third argument was that the founding fathers had a fresh, geographic start. The cosmopolitan centers of Europe were no doubt the epicenters of Western thought for many years. If one were to think greatly, one had to be in the great cities, such as London and Paris. The cultures of these areas were deeply engrained and to get anywhere, one had to abide to these trivialities. However, this was not the case in America. There were no traditions and rites to be upheld. People could think clearly and freely, they could doubt the values handed down to them over generations. This was an opportunity not given to those who remained in Europe. In this way, we could argue it was not revolutionary minds that created the American nation, but minds freed from fetters. These conditions were bound to be fulfilled at some point. The fourth argument was that the psychological diversity between the great founders of the country helped immensely in creating a new society. The different tempers were all crucial to the different aspects of a constitution and government. The eloquence and dedication to ideology Thomas Jefferson embodied was crucial to the credibility of the nation. The leadership of George Washington was also integral. And the fiery conviction of John Adams kept all opinions in check. Overall, these four hypotheses regarding what made the country so successful are crucial to the purpose of understanding American history. The author then goes on to summarize key points in American history. Essentially these key points are The Year, which is from 1775 to 1776. The emphasis here is on the strength the Americans had over the British; they had land and time on their hands which the British did not have, being an ocean away from all Royal direction and supervision of progress. We also see the beginnings of a split within the body of Congress; although this was not completely revolutionary, given the Whigs and Tories back in England, this presence of parties was a necessary part to the actual integration of such a concept into the government itself. We also see John Adams efforts to create a new and functional governmental structure. Adams argued for a bicameral legislature to soothe the issues that had been brought up for smaller states as well as the larger ones. Next, we see the winter. Essentially the winter focuses on how an impossible war was won. Britain, even if it was a defeatable force as illustrated in the French and Indian war, was still seemingly well enough equipped to defeat the completely inexperienced colonists. However,

we see that the Americans had one strength going for them. All they had to do was dodge the British forces and stay out of the way of fire. However, the British needed a finalizing victory, otherwise the Spirit of 1776 would crawl out and resume where it was so rudely interrupted. Indeed, it was this Spirit of 1776 that was also deeply pivotal. Given a deep sense of righteousness, the colonists were a very motivated fighting force. Also, they felt a sense of ownership which the British troops and German hessians no doubt lacked. Farmers were protecting their lands, families, and ideals; what were the German hirelings protecting? Their purses? Indeed, many of the German soldiers called it a day when money jingled in more promising American pursuits. The Argument deals with one of the greatest issues of the day; federalist and anti-federalist governance. The argument on these grounds was so passionate that it almost seems petty and some points. Thomas Jefferson allowed the slander of his rivals. People would eventually not even show up to conventions. Petty actions in the face of it or not, the issue itself was key. Anti-federalist motivation, Ellis argues, was based more on the purposes of wealthy estate owners. They felt a threat to their prosperity and essentially anti-federalism was a way to hide selfish purposes under a noble cause. Federalism, on the other hand, was a much more practical way to control funding, taxes, and diplomacy; overall, what was needed for a functional nation. The Treaty deals with the nature of dealing with the Native Americans. This is a key point because it shows how much the supposed revolutionary ideals actually applied. The signing away of lands was something that most leaders saw as necessary for their great nation, and it brings us back to those original key four theseswere the virtues of the great leaders heartfelt or better described by some other motive? The book itself offers a comprehensive but critical view of the issues of American history. Clearly the author himself feels some drive to put the American leaders on a pedestal. But is a pedestal of such a length that you can no longer see who is at the top anything more than somewhere to hide? Ellis realizes the urge to put them up so high and purposely brings them down again and examines them. He is liberal with relating the racism of Jefferson. He shows the times when George Washington was less than popular regarding foreign policy. Jeffersons image, supposedly a man of true impartiality with the phrase all men are created equal is revealed in light of stark hypocrisies. George Washington, the loved and stable leader is shown not so loved and considered for a time not so stable, in fact senile. In this way, I think Ellis hopes to bring the leaders down and give them a more deserved relevance, one based on fact rather than uninformed pride. Ellis also puts a lot of emphasis on two issues. One of these issues is the presence of political divergence of opinion. Having a structural bipartisanship in politics, doesnt that

seem pointless? If one way is the right way to go, how can there be any respect for the standing opinion? Shouldnt there be some pattern in what is the right way to go, a lifestyle that best reflects that of the country? Ellis argues no. No one way is the best way, and though it may be pragmatically better, would it continuously keep its integrity without opposition? Parties essentially keep ideologies on their toes, reminding politicians constantly what they stand for. And, in the same way, the split also is flexible to the changing times. Often times, one party holds reign for a certain period of time. This allows the opposition to solidify and is automatically adopted into the other party to ensure political success the next voting season. In this way, the government is continuously checked and balanced by, sadly enough, a constant bickering. Elliss other key point is racism; racism in the context of slavery, but also in the context of Southern society. His point is that the nature of Southern society was based on a little hushhush of the issue of slavery. It was best not to bring it up otherwise everything would come tumbling down. And he later connects this with Jeffersons more conniving actions. Also, racism in relation to Native Americans; the exploitation of Native peoples again points a finger at the faulty morals of our precious founders. The books main approach doing a detailed narrative of six key points in American historyhelps us view the events of history in a variety of different contexts. Open any textbooks and theyre all meshed together to create a picture of a given year. However, more can be gained it seems from treating each issue as a subplot. The Year deals with the original need for great motivation, and the ideology that answered this need. The Winter deals with the different geographic and societal reasons why America could succeed even in such an elementary state. Already with these two chapters we see the virtue in separating them. Meshed together, we would mistake the ideology nothing more than the product of the geographic and societal nature of America. But studying it on its own gives it intrinsic value and also makes its appearances in the birth of the nation clearer to spot. Ellis attempts something very brave in American Creation. He hopes to cut down the founders to only what the facts can support. He also wants to view the birth of the Nation in different perspectives (societal, ideological, geographical) without choosing one and calling it The Ultimate Perspective. But he does this ingeniously by finding chronological occurrences that can illustrate these respective viewpoints. In this way, we are carried along the path of a nations creation while viewing it from different lenses. In this he succeeds and overall it is a very well written book that opens our eyes to some important questions we usually never gain enough information and perception to ask.