First: I'm a pretty staunch conservative but I in no way endorse Laurie Thomas Vass' recommendation that America throw out the US Constitution, separate between Left/Right-leaning states, and start over. America's too important for that.

This book isn't bad because of its assertions; it's bad because it's poorly written; is way too repetitive; and far more academic than it needs to be.

Second: I've been a student of the American Revolution, its Founders, the Constitution, etc. for over 10 years. Her assertion that every historian has a secret agenda to crap on George Mason's point of view during the Constitutional Convention is absurd. And the idea that the ratifying process was illegal is asinine. I don't have to be sold on the idea that today's media is biased. That's obvious. But I don't think there's a grand conspiracy to elevate Madison at the expense of Mason.

Third: Ever hear of an editor? Good God the punctuation is atrocious. And here's an idea: When people's writing is used to advance the book's points, they should be introduced! She keeps mentioning these folks as if they're household names. No idea who they are, what they do/did, or if they're living or not.

Fourth: If you want to convince the general public on something, make your book readable. Aside form the fact that it wasn't proofread, write in a more welcoming style. Rather than quote other authors constantly (again, without letting us know who they are), integrate their thoughts more seamlessly with yours. But the book is an onslaught of (poorly punctuated) quotes that are repetitive.

Finally: It's OK to have a rather outlandish agenda. And some of the author's points are valid (the federal government is too big; there is too much crony capitalism, etc.). But don't skip over facts just to push it. I don't believe for a second that Madison, Washington, etc. were working to make an American aristocracy (well, probably Hamilton...) nor do I think they were trying to get money only into the hands of the elites. Part of the reason Washington was a strong component of a central government is that he begged Congress to get the states to send money, men, and equipment for his soldiers during the war. But Congress had no power over the states. I'm all for a limited federal government and there's no question ours is waaaaay too big today. But a government's #1 job is to protect its citizens from both domestic and foreign threats.

I appreciate Ms. Vass' attempt at the book. And I thank her for sending me another book of hers as a part of my winning this one via LibraryThing's Early Reviewers program. But this was an awful book. ( )

Hmm, a difficult book, but - worth the read. Not sure that the format - more like bulleted statements than a narrative works well, in fact, it takes a bit more attention to keep the informational nuggets together. This is essentially in three parts - the first focusing on George Mason, then about the betrayal by Madison in his version of the Constitution, then Schumpeter's economics. The first part and second parts are excellent - really puts the case together that the Constitution favored the aristocracy and especially the slave-holders - which is the argument many present African-American sociopolitical pundits point out. The last part is a bit too dense - somewhat free- market, but difficult to fathom. The call for a new Constitutional Convention is a forlorn hope - immigration, leftist control of education, and their sympathetic media would not let a reduced national government appear. ( )

I finished George Mason's America by Laurie Thomas Vass which I received in order to read and post a review. The premise of the book is that the U.S. Constitution was illegally created by a small coterie of the privileged and wealthy interests of the day and passed by the states controlled by the same elite group to benefit only themselves. Furthermore it asserts that there was nothing wrong with the then superseded Articles of Confederation and any weaknesses found on them would have easily been fixed or replaced by a stronger decentralized States Rights Constitution then championed by George Mason of Virginia.

The book is essentially broken down in 2 segments. The historical foundations attempting to justify the authors theses and then how to call forth a new constitutional convention to replace our existing constitution with one more in line with the above described "George Mason. Constitution."

I have rated this book as a1 to 1.5 star read for several reasons. The writing style is incredibly choppy and poorly written and the historical methodology approach is so unevenly slanted to the point that no positive features of the existing constitution are presented and essentially considers all those who hold the existing constitution ad legitimate age effective are lemmings.

I find the book had the opportunity to point out the strengths and weaknesses of the constitution and the constitutional convention but instead allowed its bias to cloud all legitimate historical writing standards.
I cannot recommend this book for others to purchase or read. ( )

Much of this "book" is just collected short excerpts from other works. But this work certainly has a definite point of view. The author gives herself away on page 10 when she remarks: "Madison's representative republic collapsed in the corrupt election of 2020." Although she never mentions Trump or MAGA, she repeatedly refers to the supposedly stolen election of 2020. She refers to our present national government as "the Marxist Democrat Leviathan" page 164. How can a government be controlled by the financial elite and be Marxist at the same time?
She frequently refers to highly respected economists and historians, one has to admit. But she gives no page references. She appears to be a person who has had no academic training in research. There is so much she does not know. For example she bloviates against "the Federal Reserve Bank" without acknowledging there is no such thing. The Federal Reserve System consists of twelve regional banks with a Board of Governors in Washington, D.C.
She believes the national government is controlled by the rich in their interest. And who could argue with this given what has happened in the economy since Ronald Reagan became President? But why does she believe state and local governments are any less likely to be controlled by the wealthy elite for their own advantage? She seems to believe the problems of economic inequality would disappear in only states could exit from the federal union when they choose.
She sees "a relative macro-economic stability under the era of free banking between 1840 and 1913" (page 194). Has she never heard of the Panic of 1857, the Panic of 1873 or the Panic of 1893? And it it's General Winfield Scott, NOT General Winfred Scott" (page 268). The author's several books are published by "Gabby Press" which appears to be the author's name for her self-publishing efforts. MAGA readers may like this book. Others who want to understand how the political economy of the western world works would be better advised to spend their time with Thomas Piketty's "Capitalism in the Twenty-First Century. ( )