So far excellent.

He critiques Adams' vanity, but not so much so as to lose his genuine contribution. Ellis does seem to muddy the interpretation of Adams' distaste for the popularity of the Declaration of Independence.

Ellis' proof that Adams' contradicted his own view of the Declaration by his approval of Lee's proposal to congress is flawed, but that's too much to get into.

Are these examples really corruption?

When an executive makes a poor judgment call, is this evidence of corruption? Are any humans capable of making numerous judgment calls over a period of time, and getting them all right?

I think the group of people who made their way to the New World between 1620 and 1775 were quite exceptional.

This is an interesting contrast to Arnold Kling's most absurd belief. It'd be interesting to hear a discussion of the contrast.

I read the book primarily because I read "Founding Bothers" first, which was fantastic. If I had read "America's Creation" first, I may have taken a pass.

George Washington was a great man. He freed his own slaves in the end. Reading Ellis's book on that subject gives you an idea of how hard it was to do that. When you consider how hard it is for Democrats to give up even a tiny bit of power over others by lowering taxes, you can appreciate why it was so difficult for slaveowners to give up power over their fellow humans. It just isn't something that people do very easily. But Washington finally gave up his slaves, and he also gave up the chance to be a dictator. King George 3 knew what he was talking about when he heard of it: "If true, then he is the greatest man in the world."

But even Washington was corrupted by power, even though he was more incorruptible than anyone else. He looked favorably on the makings of the Alien and Sedition acts. And while still in office he willingly let Hamilton do a vicious smackdown on the Whiskey Rebellion (a rebellion against the Neil Boortz Fair Tax of the time).