 In The Boston Globe, H.W. Brands called Ellis "the reigning master of the episodic approach to history"; he complimented the book's style but disagreed with Ellis' conclusion that blurred sovereignty was one of the Constitution's greatest strengths. Jonathan Yardley of The Washington Post wrote that he felt Ellis' portrait of the Founders was largely accurate, but that in his reading of the slavery issue, he was "a trifle guilty of the 'presentism' -- seeing the past through the prism of the present -- that he elsewhere deplores". Reviewing for The Christian Science Monitor, Randy Dotinga wrote that the book's close examination of "dry and tedious" political debates "makes for rough sledding at times", and criticized Ellis' dismissal of academic historians. However, he concluded that "Ellis's sharp writing style and appreciation for irony are saving graces".
