In 1789 the United States started what amounted to a national reboot, as a new republic created by the ratification of the Constitution began operation. This was a massive and far-reaching endeavor, one that involved the creation of new offices and branches of government, the redefinition of institutions, and a new assessment of relationships with both the thirteen states and the American people. What was at stake was nothing less than the very survival of the country as a union of states, as all of this took place under the shadow of the failure of the Articles of Confederation to provide for a government capable of tackling the challenges facing the country in the aftermath of the American Revolution, with the likely possibility that this would be the last opportunity to make union work before the country disintegrated into thirteen independent states competing with each other —or even being reabsorbed into the British empire.

This effort to launch a new republic is at the heart of Gordon Wood's history of the first two and a half decades of the United States under the federal government. As a preeminent scholar of American political thought and the revolutionary era, there are few historians better suited to the task of writing about this period of the nation's history. What he produces is a sophisticated account that explains the magnitude of the task facing the country during this period, how it was addressed by the men involved, and how their solutions provided the details lacking in the initial framework of the country. To do this, Wood starts with an extended exploration of that framework as it was perceived by the political actors of the era, reflected not just in the recent debates over the Constituton but in how they sought to turn the structure described in the document into reality. This involved filling in the details with laws passed in the new Congress; the actions and tone set by the president, George Washington (who occupied an office with no immediate parallel in the Western world); and the decisions and authority of a new body of judges, who occupied offices viewed with distrust by many people.

As political leaders worked out these details, differences emerged that reflected divergent visions of the nation. Four men in particular stand out in Wood's description of this divergence. Two of them, Alexander Hamilton and John Adams, advocated a strong national government backed by a socially conservative and hierarchical society. The other two, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, soon emerged in opposition to this, arguing for a smaller government that gave more latitude for the lower classes. Around these men coalesced the first national political parties, the Federalists and the Republicans, who fought with a bitterness that reflected the fact that the very concept of political opposition had yet to be established. This gave the politics of this period (which was still very much a preserve of the elite) a uniquely sharp edge.

In the end, the Republicans got the better of the argument, largely due to the broader changes taking place throughout the country. Wood describes well the evolution of American society during this period, which created a more egalitarian country than was envisioned by most of the Federalists. Yet by controlling the federal government for the first twelve years the Federalists were able to imprint their vision upon the country in ways that subsequent Republican Congresses and administrations were unable to alter. This was due in part to Republican disagreements as to how to undo the Federalist design, and to events overseas which underscored the need for a national government capable of expanding the nation and defending its interests abroad. The War of 1812 served as the embodiment of this need, as President Madison found his ability to wage war hampered by the underdevelopment of the country and the Republican limitations on government. Nevertheless, the nation's emergence intact from the war served as an affirmation of the success of the Constitution, reflecting its success in addressing the problems of the previous quarter-century.

In describing the history of this period, Wood displays the insights gained from a lifetime of scholarly study. This comes through on every page of the text, as he fills the book with carefully argued analysis backed by a wealth of scholarship. While Wood leans a little too heavily on his strengths as a historian of political ideology, his book untangles the complex issues of a vitally important period in American history. It makes for a sterling contribution to the Oxford History of the United States series, one guaranteed to endure as the standard text on the era for decades to come.

As I explained in a recent post, I've been thinking lately about reading Paul Britten Austin's trilogy about Napoleon's invasion of Russia. Remembering that one of the volumes was available for sale as one of my local bookstores, I trekked there today to begin the acquisition process.

Sure enough, the copy of volume 3 was still sitting on the shelf. I snapped it up and proceeded to the register. As I did so, though, I opened it up and began reading a page at random.

And then I remembered why I had passed on reading this series in the past. Because Austin's book is really just a series of paragraph-length quotes from various memoirs of the campaign's survivors, all stitched together with a few sentences moving events along. It's the kind of historical writing that I find frustratingly dull -- all narrative from others, with little in the way of analysis. So I marched back and returned the book to its shelf, because there are plenty of better books out there for me to read.

As a regular visitor of used bookstores, there are certain titles that I often run across. Some of them are books that have enjoyed numerous reprintings for one reason or another, while others had a large initial print run and have a persistent presence because of it. And there are those which while not bestsellers have an enduring appeal that leads to copies being recycled due to their continuing demand. Paul Britten Austin's trilogy on Napoleon's invasion of Russia probably fits in that third category, as while it was never a New York Times bestseller it draws interested readers because of its subject matter. It's one of those titles that I think of as a "dad book," as it seems marketed towards an audience of middle-aged white dudes.

Over the years when I have seen copies on the shelf I passed on them with a degree of unjustified disdain. Lately, however, the idea of purchasing a set has started to appeal to me. Part of it is likely my long attraction to multivolume works of history, with the depth of understanding they provide (not to mention how awesome they look on my bookshelves). But I also think that it's a reflection of my own evolving tastes as a reader. Perhaps now that I'm now a middle-aged white dude the books look more interesting to me than they did when I was younger.

I suspect there's another factor at play, though. As I get older I'm starting to contemplate more what books I will want to own once I retire. Though that day is still many years in the future, it's something I use as a factor in deciding what to dispose of when I cull my bookshelves. But lately I also think more about what I might want to re-read once reading for pleasure becomes the primary factor in my reading decisions. This has long driven my choice of the fiction I own, and I have a choice selection of classics and sci-fi in my collection because of it. But now I think of it as well in terms of the nonfiction I may want to revisit because they're well-written narratives recounting epic adventures and fascinating people. So perhaps I'm just starting to act my age as a reader.

Or maybe I'm just fabricating an excuse to buy more books. I still haven't decided yet.

William Henry Harrison is unusual among American presidents in that his career before becoming president was far more important to history than his presidency. While the abbreviated tenure in the office (a mere 31 days) was undoubtedly a factor in this, it would have been difficult for him to have improved on his pre-presidential achievements even if he had served a full term in the White House. For as David Curtis Skaggs demonstrates in his study of Harrison's military career, it is thanks to him that the United States did not lose the territory of the upper Midwest to after the War of 1812.

As Skaggs reveals, this was merely the culmination of a distinguished period under arms. The third son of a Tidewater aristocrat, Harrison deferred to his father's wishes and initially pursued a medical career. The elder Harrison's death freed William to abandon his studies and join the United States Army. After a period of service on the frontier under the command of General Anthony Wayne, Harrison transitioned into politics, serving as the governor of Indiana Territory for over a decade. In this position he was at the forefront of the government's efforts to deal with the Native Americans, with Harrison's victory over the confederation at the battle of Tippecanoe breaking the back of independent native resistance to American settlement.

Yet it was Harrison's victory over British forces in the War of 1812 that would prove more important. Early successes by British troops gave them dominance over much of the Great Lakes region, jeopardizing American claims to the territory. Though the British aspired to create a Native American "buffer state" in the region between the United States and Canada, successive American victories culminating in the defeat of retreating British soldiers and their Native American allies at the battle of the Thames effectively ended such plans. Here Skaggs emphasizes the importance of the partnership between Harrison and Oliver Hazard Perry, which he argues was an unusual example of Army-Navy cooperation and a critical factor in the success of American arms in the region.

Extensively researched and convincingly argued, Skaggs's book is an excellent study of Harrison's often underappreciated military career. It benefits greatly from the expansiveness of Skaggs's analysis, which highlights the scope of Harrison's achievements by setting them within the context of the era. By explaining such matters as the debates over Indian policy, the politics of command, and the logistical challenges of frontier warfare, he emphasizes the many challenges Harrison overcame in achieving his successes. Anyone seeking to better understand Harrison and his role in the War of 1812 would do well to start with this book, which gives the general his due as a successful commander and a pivotal figure in American history.