Helping Readers Assess Revolutionary Controversies

Ellis, Joseph J. The Great Contradiction: The Tragic Side of the American Founding. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2025.

First Glance

On the publication date of Revolutionary Era historian Joseph Ellis’s new book, two contrasting reviews appeared. The New York Times reviewer describes Ellis’s “slim” narrative as “bizarrely evasive,” which “unhelpfully describes today’s roiling debates.” In contrast, the Wall Street Journal reviewer states that Ellis “honestly” addresses the issues of slavery and Indian removal in “good faith,” without “slandering,” and shows that “history remains much too complex to divide into narrative or political sides.”

This dichotomy of opinions spurred me to purchase Ellis’s book. Based upon my history training, I looked at the footnotes section first. While this might appear wonkish, the notes section helps readers assess the quality of the author’s scholarship and how it fits with other historical works. For example, new sources portend new insights, primary sources are superior to secondary sources, and a wide range of sources foretell a well-supported thesis.

What I discovered in Ellis’s notes was remarkable. Instead of relying on online sources like Founders Online, the rural Vermont-based historian cites the original published editions of works by notable revolutionaries such as Thomas Jefferson and John Adams. This is notable for a historian living in such a rural area with limited access to a university library. At first glance, this appeared to be excellent scholarship, reducing the risk of transcription errors. 

After reflecting on it, perhaps this practice isn’t the best for readers. By including Uniform Resource Locators (URLs), readers can easily access sources to evaluate the author’s interpretations and scholarship from home. With online links, notes become more practical, offering readers a richer learning experience. I encourage historians to add URLs to footnotes or bibliographic citations for books and other online sources.

Next, I’m delving into “The Great Contradiction” to form my own assessment of its contributions to understanding of the Revolutionary Era better. Only after reaching a positive conclusion will insightful lessons emerge for modern-day issues.  The footnotes have given me an inkling of which book review best describes the Vermonter’s work. But first, a more discerning read.