American Aurora: A Democratic-Republican Returns : The Suppressed History of Our Nation's Beginnings and the Heroic Newspaper That Tried to Report It

by Richard N. Rosenfeld

Book Overview

200 Years ago a Philadelphia newspaper claimed George Washington wasn't the "father of his country." It claimed John Adams really wanted to be king. Its editors were arrested by the federal... This description may be from another edition of this product.

• Format: Hardcover
• Language: English
• ISBN: 0312150520
• Release Date: April 1997
• Publisher: St Martins Pr
• Length: 988 Pages
• Weight: 3.40 lbs.
• Dimensions: 9.8" x 2.3" x 6.8"

Customer Reviews

An eye-opening political thriller...

Can historical source material make for an exciting and engaging read? This book answers that question in the extreme affirmative. It contains documents mainly from the 18th century, but it reads like a political thriller. It also provides valuable peeks into the formation of the United States as we know it today. Magma hot controversy surrounded that formation. The press on all sides fervently spewed accusations that seem nearly heretical even today. Did John Adams want to be king? Was George Washington a bumbling and incompetent general? Did the French win the revolution for us, thanks to the diplomatic powers of Benjamin Franklin? Was Thomas Jefferson an atheistical French sympathizer? In light of these claims, Who is really the "father of our country?" Many unconventional opinions see light in this book. Some cherished political figures get shredded to bits, sometimes by their own words and sometimes by the words of others. In the end, no one is safe from abuse. Not even Benjamin Franklin and George Washington. Shocking claims await on almost every page. The drama begins in the city of Philadelphia in 1798. At this time it served as the capital for the very young United States (the government moved to Washington in 1800). John Adams holds the presidency. George Washington still has a year to live. Benjamin Franklin has been dead for eight years. His grandson, Benjamin Franklin Bache runs a newspaper called the Aurora General Advertiser (or just "The Aurora"). For reporting on certain congressmen's less than professional behavior (spitting, insults, etc), congress bars the paper from the floor of both houses. The Aurora gets shoved into the balconies of congress, far above the whispers of congressman that Bache so often reported on without approval from the House Speaker. Congress marks the Aurora as a troublemaker. This begins the first section of the book, where the Aurora accuses president Adams of wanting to be king of the United States. More than mere conjecture or metaphor spurned this accusation. Adams presented his idea of "titles" to Congress on May 9, 1789. He suggested a verbose title for the president: "His Highness, the President of the United States of America and Protector of the Rights of the Same." Along with this, he proposed that the president and all senators should hold their offices for life. These ideas deeply disturbed Bache, and the exposure of Adams' goals became a predominant goal of his paper. In addition, Bache accused the Adams administration of purposefully alienating France. The Aurora and other news sources of 1789 reported on the terrifying prospect of a French invasion of the United States. It never happened, and Bache yelled foul from his printing press. The more he yelled the more the Adams administration responded. The Sedition Act, supposedly created to silence the Aurora, came before Congress and passed in 1789. On top of that the the Alien Bill also passed, which enabled the president to deport any il

Imagine that !

It's hard to imagine how a twenty-fifth 5-star review can do any more to convince anyone to read this book... But I will try!I HATED history in school, and rarely read history as an adult. Nevertheless, I was engrossed by this book and could hardly put it down, notwithstanding 900+ pages! It has revived my interest in (accurate) history, and might do the same for you.If you like your history shined-up with the polyurethane glow of hero-sweat, don't go near this book; unless, that is, you would like to actually learn something and enjoy the learning along the way. In the end you might discover a hero or two, but mostly you will come away quite convinced that the "popular" history of our own nation is seemingly as intent as that of the old USSR on covering-up and inverting the facts. Imagine that!Say "Alien and Sedition Act" to most people who have not completely blocked their recall of high school US history and you will see the whites of their eyes - rolling up into a coma! This could be the single most boring and meaningless datum we were required to remember, no?But now, on reading "American Aurora", I find that the "act" was slammed through Congress as a way of shipping as many as possible of the troublesome new Irish immigrants off-shore as possible - before the election of 1800 where they were expected to cause electoral trouble for the Federalists. Imagine that !For that matter, say "Federalist" to most folks and you can clear the room... a few desperate souls mumbling about "Marbury and Madison". But, WHEN you read this book (it cannot be an "if"), you'll realize how fundamental the rift was and how vicious the political battle was that constructed the foundations of our political structure.. So many of our history teachers wished that we would understand the "fundamental" part - but that we would somehow accept that anything so important was settled by a bunch of powdered wigs (or was it whigs?) in grand public session - that it was all neatly sewn up, somehow, after Cornwallis's band played "The World Turned Upside Down." The true story reads more like Capone's Chicago and the "settling" of the issue was a messy, decade-long business.In style the book frightened me. Really! It is peppered with original documents of the era - letters and the like. That sort of "authenticity" often seems to just introduce confufing fyntax and fpelling that drives me away. Well, consider a quote from a letter from Thomas Paine to Washington. "You slept away your time in the field till the finances of the country were completely exhausted, and you have little share in the glory of the final event. It is time, sir, to speak the undisguised language of historical truth.". Sheesh! We realize that even Paine, usually cast as a firebrand only in the `liberty or death' category, was outspoken in other ways, which have not echoed down the halls of official history. Imagine that!Ultimately the mixture of original source documents and well-crafted storytelling i

Will transform the way you think about early America

This book was controversial in the historical community, in large part because of the author's decision to adopt the voice of William Duane as the book's "narrator." While Rosenfeld's interventions in Duane's voice are distracting and grating, ultimately they comprise only a tiny fraction of the book's ample content. The rest of the book offers a fascinanting exegesis into the character and climate of political and public life in the early republic. Critics who take aim at Rosenfeld's lack of objectivity (as a consequence of his adoption of Duane's voice) only end up revealing their own biases. Rosenfeld clearly has a stake in the story he wants to tell, but any scholar who invests time in a major research endeavor shares that position. Rosenfeld merely lays his cards on the table, without maintaining a pretense of objectivity. His argument is all the more compelling in that its constructed on a foundation almost exclusively built out of primary source materials. After reading this book, you will not necessarily be compelled that Washington was a murderer (to cite one minor example), but you will no longer be able to imagine that the eighteenth- and early nineteenth-centuries were eras of enlightened, rational thinking. This book is an engaging, illuminating read and the treasure trove of primary materials provided by the author offers readers the opportunity to draw their own conclusions about specific incidents and debates. At the same time, it leaves little room to hold onto myths about the nature of political and print culture in the so-called Age of Enlightenment.

Irritating at first but when it gets going, it's great.

You will notice that even the reviewers that hate this book are passionate in their hatred. Which is more than you can say for those damn text books that went something like Our FOUNDING FATHERS blah blah, Founding fathers blah blah, etc... that's because this book fleshes out these historical figures, makes you like them and hate them. Part One sets the stage with the initial articles of The Aurora claiming that Adams is a monarchist who only wants to be king. Published by William Duane and Benny Bache (grandson of Benjamin Franklin) the Aurora pulls no punches and neither do its detractors. The historical background is told from the perspective of Duane which is irritating at first because you feel like you are being confronted rather than informed. The articles seem just a little bit like a radical college student rambling on about how bad everything is (Gore Vidal's history books are like this as well). Part Two goes back to before the Revolutionary War to trace the personal and professional conflict between John Adams and Benjamin Franklin. Adams wants a government like England's while Franklin sees a one house parliament as ideal (much like Revolutionary France). Not only are they split in the professional sense but they don't like each other either. Washington is seen as a spoiled elitist who spends all his time whining about the army when its Franklin that wins the war by involving France. Part Three comes up to the 1800s in which Adams' Sedition Law is in effect and one by one papers that are seen as disloyal face jail sentences and high fines. Most are shut down. Aurora stays in business even though the publisher has to go into hiding. There are street brawls and open hostilities as every article of the bill of rights is challenged by the Adams administration. The problems don't end until Jefferson's election. Important things in this book -- many of the Founding Fathers hated each other. Washington was a popular president more due to reputation than anything presidential. Adams could be compared to George Bush in many ways (vice president for mediocre popular president, mediocre president, loses election to charismatic whoremonger, son goes into politics), History is a LOT more interesting than the high school textbook would have you believe. Love this book or hate it, you won't come away neutral.

Open this book and step in to the past

Reading this masterpiece is what I imagine it must have been like to discover Tutankahmen's tomb. Every chapter is a new discovery; every letter and newspaper article and pamphlet extract is a jewel in an incredible mosaic of early American history that you have never seen before. With an original and effective use of primary sources Rosenfeld has created a stunning portrait of the struggle to create and sustain our republic. I found the book immensely readable and, especially in the depiction of the halting and, at times, incompetent prosecution of the war with Great Britain, almost impossible to put down. My highest recommendation.