“By ‘reading and reasoning’ on politics they had learned ‘how to define the rights of nature, – how to search into, to distinguish, and to comprehend, the principles of physical, moral, religious, and civil liberty,’ how, in short, to discover and resist the forces of tyranny before they could be applied.” (p. 4)

They – the Americans who fought for independence and helped establish the United States. Those “they” would not recognize today’s political system, though by 1787, just a little over 10 years after the independence, politicians were beginning to depart from philosophical political theories and enter a partisan system were competition and interests were entering the arena. 

This quote was interesting and set the tone for the rest of the book.

“As early as 1775 Edmund Burke had noted in the House of Commons that the colonists’ intensive study of law and politics had made them acutely inquisitive and sensitive about their liberties. Where the people of other countries had invoked principles only after they had endured ‘an actual grievance,’ the Americans, said Burke, were anticipating their grievances and resorting to principles even before they actually suffered.” (p. 4-5)

Somewhere and somehow, we have lost that inquisitive spark, to the point where we are selecting people to run this country who seem to care more about personal branding. 

The Creation of the American Republic 1776-1787, written by Gordon S. Wood, was a fascinating read focusing on the political events between the Declaration of Independence and the ratification of the Constitution. The book is divided in six parts, with fifteen chapters covering topics such as the Whig science of politics, republicanism, moral reformation, the nature of representation, law and contracts, and the American science or politics, just to name a few. 

This is the first time I read a book that highlighted the detailed discussions among the Founding Fathers and other leaders as they debated and drafted the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. The author did an amazing job capturing the back-and-forth between leaders, which at times became very intense. 

During the Virginia convention to ratify the U.S. Constitution, we read the following debate between Patrick Henry, an Anti-Federalist, and James Madison, a Federalist, regarding federal taxation:

“Without effect Madison argued that the tax collections between the general government and the states would be similar to those between the states and the various counties and petty corporations within their boundaries. ‘The comparison,’ retorted Henry, ‘will not stand examination.’ The taxes collected within the state, whether form the state, county, or parish level, all ‘radiate from the same center. They are not coequal or coextensive. There is no clashing of power between them. Each is limited to its own particular objects, and all subordinate to one supreme, controlling power – the legislature.’ All right, answered Madison. If there had to be one supreme, controlling power over the tax collections of the general and state governments, then one could be found. ‘To make use of the gentleman’s own terms, the concurrent collections under the authorities of the general government and state governments all radiate from the people at large. The people is their common superior.’” (pp. 531-532)

They are many more debates throughout the book, and it’s fascinating to see how each person argued his point and how people voted after the debate was over. In the case of Virginia, it was almost a month of debates. Because of the kind of partisan politics we have now, debates in Congress don’t lead to much since everything goes down party lines. 

I learned a lot about the two main political philosophies during that important period of our history. At some point, I will read more about the Anti-Federalists’ ideas to get a clearer picture of both sides. 

Here are some highlights from other parts of the book that I found interesting. 

“There was, however, for all Whigs, English and American, one historical source of republican inspiration that was everywhere explicitly acknowledged – classical antiquity, where the greatest republics in history had flourished.” (p. 49) 

“The sacrifice of individual interests to the greater good of the whole formed the essence of republicanism and comprehended for Americans the idealistic goal of their Revolution.” (p. 53)

That republicanism is not the same as the Republican Party in this country. In the classical sense, republicanism meant a government based on the people’s consent, with elected representatives, and in opposition to monarchy and hereditary rule. Citizens should put the public good above private interests, while corruption and concentrated authority were seen as dangers to liberty.^1 2

“Religion and republicanism would work hand in hand to create frugality, honesty, self-denial, and benevolence among the people.” (p. 118)

“The theory of mixed government was as old as the Greeks… it was based on the ancient categorization of forms of government into three ideal types, monarchy, aristocracy and democracy.” (p. 197)

I have read about this many times, and I knew that the Founding Fathers were forming our government using this mix, but I understand now that they were looking at the presidency, the Senate, and the House of Representatives as representation of it. Basically the one (President), the few (Senate) and the many (House of Representatives), as historian Jill Lepore described it in her book These truths – A History of the United States. 

The idea was that since a corrupt monarchy turns to tyranny, a corrupt aristocracy becomes an oligarchy, and a corrupt polity becomes a democracy, having a president, a Senate, and a House of Representatives would allow each branch to check the others and maintain a balance. Clearly, a party controlling all three wasn’t part of the equation. Or maybe they simply expected men and women of character to do the right thing.

“The republican emphasis on talent and merit in place of connections and favor now seemed perverted, becoming identified simply with the ability to garner votes, thus enabling ‘the most unfit men to shove themselves into stations of influence, where they soon gave way to the unrestrained inclination of bad habits.’” (p. 398) 

That observation is from around 1787, and we can see it at its peak in today’s political environment. 

“Returning home from congress in the winter of 1785-1786, Madison at once began an intensive study of ancient and modern confederacies in search of an understanding of ‘the science of federal government’ which Americans direly needed.” (p. 472) 

“Everywhere ‘Specious, interested designing men,’ ‘men, respectable neither for their property, their virtue, nor their abilities,’ were taking a lead in public affairs that they had never quite had before, courting ‘the suffrages of the people by tantalizing them with improper indulgences.” (p. 477)

“The Antifederalists thus came to oppose the new national government for the same reason the federalist favored it; because its very structure and detachment from the people would work to exclude any kind of actual and local interest representation and prevent those who were not rich, well born, or prominent from exercising political power. Both sides fully appreciated the central issue the Constitution posed and grappled with it throughout the debates: whether a professedly popular government should actually be in the hands of, rather than simply derived from, common ordinary people.” (p. 516)

I think this last quote describes the complexity and the intellectual rigor with which our Founding Fathers and leaders in each of the states engaged in the process of establishing the foundation of the government we have now. For better or worse, the citizens of this country are at the center of our government. We can only hope that, seeing how important our role is, we will take this responsibility seriously and elect capable men and women to lead this country – something that we badly need right now. 

If you are interested in what actually occurred during those years between the Declaration of Independence and the ratification of the U.S. Constitution, this is the book for you. The extensive notes throughout the book provide primary sources for those who want to know exactly what those leaders said during this important period of our history. 

A great source that I will visit again and again, for sure. 

---

About the Author:

Gordon Stewart Wood (November 27, 1933 –June 7, 2026) was an American historian and academic who was a professor at Brown University. He was a recipient of the 1993 Pulitzer Prize for History for The Radicalism of the American Revolution (1992). His book The Creation of the American Republic, 1776–1787 (1969) won the 1970 Bancroft Prize. In 2010, he was awarded the National Humanities Medal by President Barack Obama.³

---

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republicanism ↩︎
2. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/republicanism/ ↩︎
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gordon_S._Wood ↩︎

• Book Reviews