Decision in Philadelphia: The Constitutional Convention of 1787
Product Type: Book
Product Price: $16.00
Manufacturer: Ballantine Books
Purchase
Description
Includes a complete copy of the Constitution.
Fifty-five men met in Philadelphia in 1787 to write a document that would create a country and change a world. Here is a remarkable rendering of that fateful time, told with humanity and humor. "The best popular history of the Constitutional Convention available."--Library Journal
From the Paperback edition.
Reviews
Rating: 5 / 5
Date: 2010-04-01
Summary: "Decision in Philadelphia"
This outstanding history of the U.S. constitution arrived promptly, and in excellent condtion. I have read several history books about the U.S. constitution, and this one is the best yet. Thanks to the seller for an excellent book.
Rating: 5 / 5
Date: 2009-10-15
Summary: "Very readable, extensive look at the Convention proceedings"
This book is an exemplary effort at detailing the dynamics of the US Constitution making Convention of 1787 in its debates, alliances, tradeoffs, and decisions concerning the major issues of small vs. large states in the construction of Congress, the interests of the small-farming and commercial North vs. the export-focused plantation system of the South, the nature of the presidency, the allocation of powers to the national government, especially the control of a standing army and state militias, and the distribution of responsibilities between the three branches of gov, along with other matters. There were a number of key players at the convention and the authors don't shortchange the reader in providing relevant and interesting details of their backgrounds and philosophies. Unlike some books on the Convention, this book takes little interest in local Philadelphia "color." Beyond the Convention and some background info, only a brief summary of the ratification process is provided.
The United States had become an enfeebled nation by the late 1780s. Its financial system barely functioned causing much distress among middling folks and ruining the US credit standing with foreigners; the insulating, noncompatible policies and legislation of the various states had a chilling effect on economic development; the US was under siege in the West and South from the British, Spanish, and Indians and by Barbary pirates in the Mediterranean; and the US gov under the Articles of Confederation had no power or tools to address any of it. Shays' Rebellion in Mass, fomented by indebted farmers in 1786-87, was the final confirmation that the US government had to be revamped.
The leading "nationalists" at that time, Washington, Hamilton, and Madison, were instrumental in orchestrating various meetings, notably one at Annapolis, MD, that led to the Convention and the creation of a Constitution and government that overcame the limitations of the Articles. At the Convention, Washington was mostly a stabilizing presence; Hamilton placed himself on the sidelines with his advocacy of an English-like, semi-monarchial system; and Madison's Virginia Plan, first up for debate at the Convention, was largely rejected in the end. Madison was certainly not without significant influence at the Convention, but the authors suggest that the label "Father of the Constitution" is an overstatement. Not all attendees were nationalists; the states' righters came down more on the side of reform, yet they cannot be labeled obstructionists.
The authors, as do all researchers of the Convention, used Madison's extensive notes on the Convention proceedings as their primary source. They tell an interesting story in that Madison seems to have slighted Charles Pinckney of South Carolina when it came to faithfully transcribing Pinckney's presentation of a alternative to the Virginia Plan early in the Convention. Apparently, Madison, a rather reticent man, loathed the aristocratic, decadent Southerner and largely ignored his ideas, which turned out to be closer to the final document than Madison's. Fortunately, the reputations of many delegates are enhanced through his notes. Nationalists James Wilson and Gouverneur Morris of Penn and the states' righter Roger Sherman of Conn are presented as key advocates for their positions and facilitators towards the final product. Morris gets the credit for actually writing the Constitution as well as coining the term "We the people of the United States."
The entire notion of a Constitutional Convention was fraught with difficulties. The authors say little of how the Articles' requirement of unanimous consent of all states to be amended was to be overcome. The attendees could not possibly have anticipated that it would take four months to adequately resolve the multiple interests of the various states to form a new government. However, knowing that their various issues were inter-related, they placed no limits on re-opening previously agreed-upon points that were being impacted by current deliberations. They also devised the concept of the Committee of the Whole, whereby the Convention frequently turned itself into a debating society with non-binding voting. Given the circuitous nature of the deliberations, the authors' approach, well-handled, is to generally follow the flow of a major area of debate in chronological order and then return to the start of the Convention for another major topic.
According to the authors, perhaps the most vexing and potentially threatening issue of the Convention, taking nearly two months to resolve, was whether representation in the national legislature would be proportional to state populations or retain the one-vote-per-state voting under the Articles, in essence, making small states equal to large ones. Interestingly, the deep South states of the Carolinas and Ga aligned with Mass, Va, and Penn to support proportional representation. As the authors point out, that alignment was based on the mistaken notion that the Southern states would soon be heavily populated. But the states' righters were so adamant about not being at a disadvantage to big states, that a final victory in that voting would have been pyrrhic because the small states would have walked out of the convention.
Even though a bi-cameral legislature was problematic for some of the delegates due to the rather obvious contradiction of an upper house filled with the "better" sort in a society with republican ideals of a homogeneous, virtuous people, the concept did facilitate a resolution of this issue. Led by Sherman, Conn joined the big-state alliance to ensure that House membership would be based on state populations. Each state having equal votes in the Senate was far more difficult to achieve with several delegates voting, not necessarily in accordance with their first inclination, on July 17, or absenting themselves, to ensure that the small states got at least part of what they wanted. They had to accept the dilution of their state power because of the possible splitting of their Senatorial votes. The authors point out that the big vs. small state controversy was a bit artificial; never since have states aligned based on their size.
In this turn to a strong national government, the importance of the theoretical "people" was elevated over the sovereignty of the states. The authors contend that Madison held "that government should arise from the people and act on them directly, rather than through the states"; that "separation of powers" should be the guiding principle in the design of government; and that "men in power were not to be wholly trusted." The national government was to be dominant and drew its legitimacy from being ratified directly by the people; state governments were to exercise only as much power as to be "subordinately useful." In this view, states were considered to be obstacles to a sound national government. The new government also represented a shift away the English-held principles of "mixed" government whereby different branches represented different social classes. In America, all officials represented all of the "people." Despite this emphasis on the "people," few delegates, including Madison, were all that enamored of their wisdom. Virtually all of the fifty-five delegates were lawyers, merchants, or plantation owners - in other words, aristocrats. Unsurprisingly, rather than advocating direct participation in government by citizens, most delegates favored indirect election of officials through such bodies as legislatures and electoral colleges.
Finally resolving the representation issue in Congress was a huge turning point in the Convention. From that point, the state alliances became far more pragmatic and shifting with North-South considerations moving to the fore as smaller states no longer felt threatened by the big states. The authors detail the "series of complex and intricate intermeshed North and South deals" struck over such issues as the counting of slaves for representation, periodic, mandatory reapportionment, taxation based on representation, the terms of new state entry, import and export taxes, the importation of slaves and their taxation, interstate commerce, and navigation exclusivity acts. At times, theoretical consistency suffered. Both Conn and SC wanted the national government to regulate commerce, but they wanted no restrictions on exports reflecting their extreme dependence on exports. Although Conn and SC saw that their principal interests coincided and were willing to trade on the others, the fruits of their alliance could only be realized after the work of two committees.
In addition to the of the Committee of the Whole, the Convention also used the device of assigning committees of five to eleven (one per state) delegates to clarify issues outside the bounds of the Convention. Perhaps the most important of those was the Committee of Detail formed on July 24 tasked with bringing coherence to the numerous and contradictory resolutions passed to that point. Perhaps overstepping its mandate, that committee consisting of two northerners: Nathaniel Gorham of Mass and Oliver Ellsworth of Conn, two southerners: John Rutledge of SC and Edmund Randolph of Va, and one middlestater: James Wilson of Penn, essentially produced a draft of the Constitution. Even though the Committee was headed by Rutledge, a rather moderate Southern partisan, its report on Aug 6 was surprising in its pro-Southern stance regarding taxation, navigation, etc. Yet another Committee of Eleven, consisting of who the authors referred to as "conciliatory men," meeting in late Aug produced a more nuanced recommendation. Conn and SC got their prohibition on export taxation. Conn had to give on permitting slave importation for twenty years and accepting slaves to count as three-fifths of a person for representation, while SC had to accept a nominal tax of ten dollars for each slave imported and, more important to the North, permit shipping acts to pass with a simply majority in Congress. The North also reluctantly accepted a detested fugitive slave provision.
The authors suggest that the debates over big vs. small states and commercial, taxation, and slavery issues were far more sensitive and stretched out than anyone anticipated. Going into the Convention, most were far more concerned with how power was going to be allocated and its impact on liberty. The issues were extremely complex: the distribution of power between the national gov and the states: especially, the vetoing of state legislation by the national gov; the nature of the presidency: how selected, term of office, power given and checked; a general grant or enumerated list of power for the national gov; and a national standing army, reliance on state militias, or both. Of course, adding to the volatility of the debate, was the psychological climate of having dealt with English tyranny over the last two decades. These debates definitely overlapped with the earlier issues of big vs. small states and the resolution of interests. The small states in particular, once achieving equal standing, were more inclined to support a strong national gov for their own protection. While no states exited the Convention over these issues, three of the delegates, Elbridge Gerry of Mass, George Mason of Va, and Randolph of Va, found liberty to be sufficiently threatened by the new measures that they declined to sign the Constitution.
What came out of this last set of debates was a far stronger national government than anyone anticipated going in and even fully appreciated after the Constitution's passage. The Convention rejected Madison's desire for Congress to be able to veto state legislation, but, in essence, the Supreme Court came to exercise that function. That authority was part of the so-called "supremacy" clause of the Constitution requiring state legislation and state judiciaries to not contradict national legislation and the Constitution and to enforce them. The national government also was given the overriding power "necessary" to execute all of its defined powers. Despite a predisposition to place almost all power in legislatures, as the closest representatives of the people, the Convention ended up creating a strong executive, who headed the military, could "make" war, had wide-ranging appointment responsibilities, negotiated treaties, and could veto legislation. In turn, Congress could impeach and depose a president, give advice and consent, and had the right to "declare" war. Madison's desires to balance and check power were well-realized in the Constitution.
The authors point out some glaring shortcomings of the Convention. First was the failure to include provisions that became the Bill of Rights. Many felt they were not needed. Southern states were reluctant to detail specific rights in the Constitution when nearly half of their populations had none. In addition, most state constitutions already specified such rights, which would not be overridden by the Constitution. Third, as many conceived it, the American "people" retained total sovereignty and had simply delegated power to the new national government which could be rescinded at any time. As the authors point out, such thinking is probably wishful. They also suggest that the Convention had the power to press the Southerners harder on slavery. They could have contained it geographically and stopped its importation. As the authors note, the Southern states were far more vulnerable to enemies and economically than were the Northern states and undoubtedly would have given more.
Obviously, the Constitution has worked - at least for most people. The authors give several reasons. The national gov was built on the sovereignty of the people and their continual consent. Government was no longer a contract between ruled and rulers. The people would not tolerate any such distinctions. The Constitution takes into account the weaknesses of men - thirst for power and inability to make good choices - with its elaborate network of checks and balances. The national gov was given the power to be effective. A questionable point of the authors' is their claim that the "Founding Fathers were very much concerned with the rights of minorities." That is based on their view that Congress is actually a collection of minorities; therefore, appreciative of that, no one minority would attack another because of the chance for turnabout. They also claim that "no single ideology has ever been able to dominate an American government." There are arguments to be made against those notions.
This book is a very thorough look at the particulars of the proceedings of the US Constitutional Convention. It is far more than merely descriptive. They spell out the thinking of the participants all through the process. The book is well organized considering the circuitous path that the Convention actually took in examining the issues. At this point, this reviewer can not come up with a more readable, complete book of the Convention.
Rating: 5 / 5
Date: 2009-09-11
Summary: "Extremely Readable and Useful Book"
This book by the Collier Brothers was the first summer reading book I was ever assigned, and I initially had very negative feelings towards the book. However, after having read just the first four chapters, I was hooked. This was a history book unlike any other that I had read, and I devoured the book, finishing in just a few days. The Collier Brothers present the events of the Constitutional Convention in a very readable and enjoyable manner, going into detail about the people behind the constitution, not just the constitution itself. The second chapter in particular, titled "America in 1787," provided me with a close look at American life and values in that time period, which also helped me put into perspective the attitudes of the Federalists and the Antifederalists. Overall, this book was an extremely useful and easy read. Not only did it help me achieve success in my AP government class, but after reading it a second time before college, it allowed me to have a great background for my freshman seminar about the political founding of America. I would definitely recommend this book to any aspiring government or history student.
Rating: 3 / 5
Date: 2009-07-25
Summary: "Nicely done primer on the Constitutional Convention of 1787"
Christopher and James Collier started very strongly in this telling of the Constitutional Convention. The book tends to bog down in the middle, particularly on the slave issues and then finishes better (until the last chapter that is mainly an editorial). The Colliers took a different approach writing this book - they decided to write about each different major issue as a separate topic and then follow that topic chronologically through to its conclusion. I'm not sure why they took that approach, but my guess that it made it easier for two individuals to write up their separate pieces and then put it back together again. However, for the reader, it is not the best approach. It causes repetition, confusion as to the timeline, it affects the rhythm of the story, kluges together the biographies of the main players and slows down the pace.
Other dislikes are the bibliography and the often thrown in opinions. Because the bibliography is sloppy and not very well documented, it is difficult to know when facts are being presented or opinions. I'm okay with historians giving me their read on the situation, but it is nice to know when that is occurring. Since most of the book is secondary references, the sloppiness is not acceptable. The authors stated that they used Madison's "Notes", but they are not documented in a way to show when they are used versus when a secondary reference is begin used.
I did enjoy the quick biographies of many of the players, George Mason, Elbridge Gerry, James Wilson, William Paterson, Roger Sherman, Charles Pinckney, and James Madison - many of which I had very little previous knowledge. Although the manor in which the biographies were brought into the story caused me to confuse some of them by the end.
It is a very readable account and one that every American should at least attempt to read in order to understand the accomplishment of these very patriotic men. How many of us would leave their families and their work for nearly four months and live in 90 degree heat without air conditioning and dress formally each day. Yet, these men did something that our Congress today can't seem to do - they found the pieces that they agreed upon and built from there. They didn't try to tear each apart in order to feed any egos. This was a truly remarkable feat.
I'm sure that this is not the best documentary on this subject, but it is certainly good enough for a primer and it's probably a little better than that. I'd give it 3.5 stars, but since I can't - it's 3 stars.
Rating: 4 / 5
Date: 2009-04-22
Summary: "The Constitution In Context"
The American colonies won independence from Britain a few years earlier. The thirteen states met to form a "more perfect" government. No dictatorship, no monarchy, no theocracy. A distrust of centralized power, but how is power properly allocated and disbursed among the states and the people?
The authors concentrate on setting the stage of the Constitutional Convention and describing the foundational issues of government, the alliances and coalitions that lead to compromise and the personalities of these great men.
It's frightening how far we have drifted from what these men intended and tried to guard against. Many of their fears are being realized today. I won't try to explain it here, but you'll understand after reading this sprightly, mostly objective account.