Before reading this work, I looked upon it as very promising. Read, in contrast the vast majority of other historians of the era, proposes to analyze and contrast the political philosophies of four major early Americans by examining their views on the relationship between power and liberty. Thus, the author is also in effect transcending the trite republicanism/liberalism dichotomy that has domincated scholarship for decades by returning to the methodology used by the great Bernard Bailyn. Unfortunately, the author ultimately fails to execute.
Madison is the first thinker that he discusses, and along with the chapter on Wilson, this is the highlight of the book. He effectively argues that Madison was a much more consistent thinker than past scholars have made him out to be. While Madison's transformation from an ally to Hamilton during the Constitutional Convention to a strong opponent several years later has long puzzled historians, Read demonstrates the consistenty that he maintained in both positions as related through his interpretation of the Constitution and the public's understanding and perception of it. In addition to this, he also undertakes the strangely neglected task of comparing Madison with Hamilton. This however, leads the first major downfall of the study, viz. his unsound analysis of Hamilton.
To begin with, even the subtitle of this chapter is enough to arouse one's suspicions. Hamilton is characterized as a "Libertarian and nationalist." The later appelation is certainly undisputable, but the former is clearly absurd to anyone who has any idea what libertarianism actually entails. Throughout the chaper, Hamilton's supposed commitment to liberty and other traditional Whig or republican principles is given far too much emphasis with far too little substantive evidence. Along with this, Hamilton's views on Constitional and economic policy are given a shallow, sympathetic treatment, while other aspects of his life and thought are either ignored or merely glossed over. This of course, largely serves to vitiate the very promising contrast of Hamilton with Madison that he conducts.
Nevertheless, the chapter on James Wilson is quite valuable, especially since he, unlike the other 3 figures dealt with, has been prodominantly ignored by modern scholars. He shows that while Wilson was as committed to the concept of popular sovreignty as Thomas Jefferson, he believed that the proper manner to systemize this was primarily through the Federal government. Hence, Wilson, like Hamilton, was a proponent of "energetic government," because he viewed it as the proper systemization of the "energy" of the sovereign people.
Although the chaper on Hamilton was bad, that dealing with Jefferson is worse. Read, quite correctly, recognizes throughout the work that Jefferson, (unlike Madison, Hamilton, and Wilson) viewed power and liberty as polar opposites, with every increase of power entailing a proportionate decrease in liberty. T Surprisingly , however, his actual analysis of his thought is among the worst that I have ever read. He seems to make a concerted effort to make his political philosophy as nebulous and contradictory as possible. Moreover, while he cites David N. Mayer's invaluable work on Jefferson's Constitutional thought, and even states that fellow scholar Michael Zuckert helped him with the work; he utilizes the flawed and inaccurate work of Lance Banning and Richard Matthews. As a result of this, he takes up the absurd contention that Jefferson was an agrarian who opposed capitalism, and thus Hamilton and his radical vision for a new economic order.
This view, in addition to being completely unfounded, also highlights the paucity of Read's sources. Such important works as Joyce Appleby's "Capitalism & A New Social Order" and Garret Sheldon's "The Political Philosophy of Thomas Jefferson" are completely ignored.
While the analysis of Jefferson's thought is dramatically poor, perhaps the worst aspect of the work is the author's translation of views of each thinker to the politcal landscape of the late 20th century. For the first three thinkers, he manages to claim that their theories may actually be able to fit modern day circumstances. Jefferson, however, is excluded from this, given his radical views on power. In each case, he uses the common statist platitude that convictions formulated two centuries ago cannot apply to issues out of their temporal context. In the case of all of these men, even Hamilton, this argument is patently absurd, as their adherence to the principals of natural rights and liberty certainly make clear. As Jefferson once said, Nothing...is unchangeable but the inherent and unalienable rights of man." Consideration of this, among other Founding principles, has led even as staunch a Hamiltonian as Forrest McDonald to conclude the Founding Fathers would look upon the current government as tyrannical. As should be obvious, I view this work as very deeply flawed. Nevertheless, given the proper author utilizing the same methodology, this could have been a truly fascinating and valuable piece of scholarship.
