She uses primary documents such as diaries, journals, and notes, combined with secondary sources such as biographies, historical articles, and historian's viewpoints of times and individuals in history. She combines a deep understanding of history with the ability to see beyond words to engage the feelings and inner thoughts of individuals in their written words. Normally, this reliance on "feelings" and intuition does not play largely in history, but Freeman feels it is an important aspect of her research. She writes, "Although historians typically dismiss such evidence as personal, idiosyncratic, and trivial - useful for little more than spicing up biographies and historical narratives - feelings are vital passageways to an intuitive level of thought" (Freeman 289-290). Thus, this book is different, not because of the research, but because the author attempted to personalize the research, thus personalizing the individuals for the reader. If there is anything to criticize about this work, it is her determination to show how mismanaged the American government has always been. She maintains that the strict code of honor is one of the only threads that held the new nation together, and that bickering, shifting loyalties, and personal motives would have destroyed the New Republic had this code of honor not been in place. However, her research actually points to many good, decent individuals, such as William Plumer and William Maclay, who strove to create a viable, working government admit chaos, disorganization, and the disintegration of political parties. Certainly, the atmosphere was charged with emotion, disagreement, and personal motives - the men were human, after all. However, this theme pervades the book. It would have been more balanced, it seems, if more attention was given to some of those members of the government who managed to get along without the petty differences, personal motives, and petty grievances that bothered so many of their cohorts. Certainly, these men existed, and the book would have been stronger...

That is not to say the author is not extremely good at presenting her arguments and research. However, it seems that while her thesis is readily proved, there could have been more than a code of honor that helped keep the politicians in check. There had to be some that were so committed, they did not need a code of honor to justify their actions, they were simply honorable men.
In conclusion, initially, the main thesis of this book, the code of honor that governed our early political leaders, did not seem to ring true to this reader. It seemed to be a rather minor detail in the many important undertakings in the fledgling years of a new country. And yet, the author portrayed her thesis clearly, created compelling arguments, and illustrated her points with extensive research and thought. This book increased my knowledge and understanding of the first years of the New Republic. Americans tend to think that once the war with Great Britain was over, everything here in the United States was immediately calm and coherent, and this book proves that was simply not the case. The fledgling nation still had many growing pains to overcome, and history was not all glorious and harmonious. Rather, the country faced many challenges in government and political action, and this book graphically points out the many challenges early leaders faced, and how they coped with them. I would recommend the book to scholars, students, and anyone who is interested in American History, especially the very beginnings of the American Republic. I do not believe this book is a rehash of accepted information, at least it was not for me. I think it might be too intense for general reading, but would certainly be a welcome addition to any American History class that delves deeply into the roots of the United States and her government.