Contradiction or Paradox? Anything New?

Book Review

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

Joseph Ellis, the Pulitzer Prize-winning historian, begins his latest book by correctly dismissing two common interpretations of the American Revolution founders. The first is a mythologized view that puts them on pedestals and glosses over their flaws. The second judges the founders by today’s moral standards and sees them as guilty of many immoral acts. Ellis characterizes this interpretation as “a presentist fallacy.” He argues that both views treat the founders as valuable “trophies” in today’s culture wars.

Ellis presents a third perspective, that there was a “Great Contradiction” in the minds and actions of the founding generation. The contradiction lies in the fact that the founders could declare that “all men are created equal” while either supporting or ignoring the existence of hereditary slavery in the new nation. Ellis emphasizes that he was not seeking to identify heroes and villains but to understand “the self-evident contradiction.” He concludes that slavery was the original sin of American history and that, for the American republic to survive its early stages, it had to be tolerated.

Ellis notes in the acknowledgment section the influence of Edmund Morgan, the renowned historian, who argued in American Slavery, American Freedom (1975) that the Virginia planters’ pursuit of their own freedom was rooted in enslaving others. Although later historians have concerns about applying the Virginia experience to other colonies, Morgan’s depiction of the clash between slavery and freedom as a “paradox” remains. 

For example, Annette Gordon-Reed, president of the Organization of American Historians and Harvard professor, often uses the term “paradox.” She stresses the importance of studying historical figures like Jefferson “on their own terms and in their own times.” This approach allows for examining how Jefferson himself navigated his “seemingly paradoxical ideas” without modern hindsight clouding his true perspective.

While contradiction and paradox are often used interchangeably, there is an important distinction relevant to understanding the founding era. A contradiction is a direct conflict between two statements that can’t both be true; if one is true, the other must be false (e.g., “It is raining” and “It is not raining”). In contrast, a paradox is a statement that seems self-contradictory or absurd but may be true upon further examination (e.g., “I must be cruel to be kind”). The apparent contradiction can reveal a deeper, less obvious truth. 

Ellis misses an opportunity to clarify American slavery by not exploring this distinction. For example, one could argue that the founders faced a classic paradox: they had to maintain slavery during the rebellion to later abolish it. In the years before the rebellion, several colonies passed laws banning the Atlantic slave trade. Each time, the King vetoed the ban. Without taxes on slave-produced goods, the British government would go bankrupt. The trade in humans and the output of enslaved people was too valuable to the Empire to risk losing. In 1772, the Somerset court decision effectively outlawed slavery in the British Isles. However, no attempts were made to extend this ban to the colonies. The British people were not interested in ending slavery in the colonies; it was their golden goose. The colonies had no say in the matter and could not end slavery on their own, as shown by the Royal veto of the ban on importing enslaved people.

So, it was, in this view, a true paradox. The Americans had to compromise their morals and gain independence first, and then, only then, could they move to end slavery. History supports the paradox interpretation: twelve American states banned slavery before the British Empire ended slavery in 1833. Of course, it took another war for the remaining states to end slavery thirty-two years later. 

The claim that Americans could only end slavery by first becoming an independent country highlights the importance of understanding why people acted as they did. Unfortunately, Ellis does not address the key question of why the founders did not confront the issue of slavery. He mentions Washington’s regrets and Jefferson’s paralysis regarding slavery, but leaves unanswered why the public was willing to tolerate slavery while pursuing political, social, and religious freedoms. The question of “why” warrants more focus and historical investigation.

Morgan’s and Reed’s use of “paradox” provides another advantage over Ellis’s assessment of the founding era’s conundrum as a contradiction. Since one side must be wrong in a contradiction, then “presentist” thinking slips into Ellis’s arguments. The founders had to be deeply flawed. Other historians avoid this presentist view by using the neutral term “paradox.” It reveals a deeper, less obvious truth, highlights the complexity of reality, and avoids passing judgment on people.

Whether you prefer contradiction or paradox to explain Revolutionary America, Ellis’s book is best suited for those new to the literature of the founding era. Readers already familiar with the American Revolution probably won’t find many new insights or interesting primary sources. Others might be put off by Ellis’s presentist claims, such as describing aspects of the founding as failures or tragedies. His book mainly serves as an introduction to the debates over race and slavery during the rebellion, but it should be read carefully to avoid projecting today’s issues.