The American Revolution of 1800

How Jefferson Rescued Democracy from Tyranny and Faction - and What This Means Today

De: Dan Sisson

Narrado por: Kevin Pierce

Duración: 8 h y 34 m

Resumen del Editor

In this brilliant historical classic, Dan Sisson argues that Thomas Jefferson thought democratic revolutions would be necessary from time to time to break the grip of autocratic factions on the government. That is how Jefferson saw the election of 1800 - and the lessons for today couldn’t be more obvious. Most historians celebrate Jefferson’s victory over Adams in 1800 as the beginning of the two-party system, but Jefferson would have been horrified by this interpretation. Drawing on the understanding of faction, revolution, and conspiracy reflected in the writings of the Founders, Sisson makes it clear that they, like Jefferson, envisioned essentially a nonparty state.

Jefferson believed his election was a peaceful revolution by the American people overturning an elitist faction that was stamping out cherished constitutional rights and trying to transform our young democracy into an authoritarian state. It was a transfer of power back to the people, not a change of parties. Sisson maintains Jefferson would regard our current two-party system as a repudiation of his theory of revolution and his earnest desire that the people as a whole, not any faction or clique, would triumph in government. The ideals of the American Revolution were in danger until this "Revolution of 1800," to which we owe the preservation of many of our key rights. With contributions by Thom Hartmann that bring out the book’s contemporary relevance, this fortieth-anniversary edition contains new insights and reflections on how Jefferson’s vision can help us in our own era of polarization, corruption, government overreach, and gridlock.

©2014 Daniel Sisson and Thom Hartmann (P)2014 Daniel Sisson and Thom Hartmann

insightful and relevant and applicable

So glad to find out this book was available in audio. Hartman has a unique perspective and despite critics his insights stand on their own..regardless of opinions....the fact is that factions has pros and cons
and we cannot actively dynamically solve our serious issues with outm diverse insights and meaningful dialog. we also cannot move without some consensus and synergy....the force behind such unifications comes through the prodigies like jefferson who was a truly comprehensive Renaissance man (with a lovely wife!!)

I love what this book represents. You will get its message only if you see the whole issue in its comprehensive nature.

thanks Thom for the commitment to timeless principles of critical thinking and original insights and application in a qualitative contemporary stage...passing this on to someone I literally used to bodysurf with at Sandy beach in the 70's,...whose name is Barack (yes, him)....and urging him to take it with him on his current work trips...

Ignore history at your peril

Important neglected history about internal factions more dangerous than a foreign invader that can sink the republic or transform it at the will of a powerful minority. Many lessons applicable today with the two party system, concentrated press ownership, and an oligarchic ruling class.

I wish I liked it better

What disappointed you about The American Revolution of 1800?

While this book covers a pertinent topic that is relevant today, the way it repeats the theme over and over and over makes it seem like a tedious homework assignment rather than a fun read. I wish I could say something more positive about it as it was researched quite well, with quotes from the founding fathers to substantiate the point being made.

What do you think your next listen will be?

A historical work.

What about Kevin Pierce’s performance did you like?

It's a very competent delivery of the author's work. No problem with the voiceover.

If you could play editor, what scene or scenes would you have cut from The American Revolution of 1800?

I'd cut down the endless repetition of the same point.

Jefferson bias

Many books are biased in Jefferson's favor but this one takes the cake. I bristled so much at his insulting description of John Adams in the first chapter that I couldn't go on. The author clearly shares the political view that Federalist were Monarchists, which means he doesn't understand any of them. Why go into history if you aren't going to look at everything from all sides?