Miracle At Philadelphia: The Story of the Constitutional Convention May - September 1787
Product Type: Book
Product Price: $16.95
Manufacturer:
Purchase
Description
This book is a history of the Federal Convention in Philadelphia that resulted in the Constitution of the United States.
Reviews
Rating: 5 / 5
Date: 2009-12-11
Summary: "Miracle at Philadelphia"
It is easy to see why this book has remained the classic account of the Constitutional Convention. It is so well-written, so full of detail, and so free from the personal prejudices of the author. Anyone of any political persuasion will learn from this book.
Rating: 3 / 5
Date: 2009-08-11
Summary: "A Misguided Historiographical Account of the U.S. Constitution"
~Miracle At Philadelphia: The Story of the Constitutional Convention May - September 1787~ by Catherine Drinker Bowen is a an interesting, albeit misguided recollection of the accomplishment of the framers of the United States Constitution at Philadelphia in 1787. The chief reason for the limitation of this book is the benign neglect wrought out in the historiographical perspective of the author, which is tantamount to a fallacy of exclusion. I speak as an enthusiast for the Constitution of our forefathers and as an Originalist by the way.
The book's title itself reveals the overarching historiographical error as it relates to the author's perspective. This error is reinforced by the leading jurists of our age, who venerate the Constitution in words, but in deeds, they sweep aside the original intent animating that noble document as understood by the ratifiers of the Constitution. For as Chief Justice Burger noted on the occasion of the Constitution's bicentennial, "Two centuries ago in Philadelphia, one of the most extraordinary events in all human history occurred, and America and the world were thereby transformed." This reverence for the innovation of the Constitution as if it were a zeroing of the calender undermines the conservative achievement of the American Founders, and that instrument's rootedness in the American historical experience, and the continuity of a proceeding Anglo-American constitutional tradition that predates the Revolution. Furthermore, the adoption of the Constitution, was a chain of unique events in American history that should not be understood as "a miracle in Philadelphia"; but rather as a realistic, human achievement brought together by the prudence of some of the more able American statesman of the time. To regard the Framers of the Constitution as demigods, ultimately undermines the republican character of the American commonwealth; and its commitment to republican self-government. If the Constitution is indeed a "miracle," then it can only be handled by priests, who while venerating it as a holy relic, remove the task of governing from the people themselves. Glorifying the Framers is a form of pseudo-mysticism that naturally leads to elitist rule. Just as Justice Burger can boast of the Constitution's achievement, the late Justice Charles Evan Hughes can boast, "The Constitution is whatever the judges say it is." This historiographical understanding is worse than foolish and undemocratic; it foremost prevents any serious effort to truly appreciate the achievement of the American Founding Fathers. American civil society remained virtually the same after the adoption of the Constitution, as it was before 1787. There was no radical Jacobin transformation of the American body politic as occurred in France in 1787. Only the powers of the federal government were augmented, and the mode of its operations modified. A certain stability was added to the body politic granted, as it functioned better than the preceding Articles of Confederation.
It is not surprising too that those who appropriate the myth of the "miracle at Philadelphia," also appropriate other myths such as James Madison being "the Father of the Constitution." Madison was a brilliant man, and his real claim to fame was documenting the proceedings of the Convention, but his Virginia Plan rooted in a unitary nationalist principle was not the final consensus product of the framers. There was no Lycurgus figure at Philadelphia. Neither Madison, nor Hamilton, the chief author of the Federalist deserve this renown. The Philadelphia Convention was truly a product of committee. Unsung heroes like John Dickinson proffered a visionary plan for setting the Constitution on an equipose, and preserving the federal character and effectuating a harmonious equilibrium between state and federal authority. Able men like Roger Sherman and Oliver Ellsworth of the moderate Federalist persuasion agreed to the need for augmenting federal powers while keeping the federal principle intact. Their influence was just as profound as that of Madison at Philadelphia.
Madison's claim to fame was the Virginia Plan, which was rejected, as elder statesman corrected the consolidationist impulse of the younger statesman (i.e., Hamilton, Wilson, Madison, McClurg, et al.), as Oliver Ellsworth prudently said, "Let not too much be attempted."
During the climax of the Philadelphia Convention, a younger Madison candidly conceded the limitation of the proceedings in Federalist No. 40: "It is time now to recollect that the powers were merely advisory and recommendatory; that they were so meant by the States, and so understood by the convention; and that the latter have accordingly planned and proposed a Constitution which is to be of no more consequence than the paper on which it is written, unless it be stamped with the approbation of those to whom it is addressed. This reflection places the subject in a point of view altogether different, and will enable us to judge with propriety of the course taken by the convention." Madison made the point explicit in a moment of sober-minded reflection as an elder statesmen: "As a guide in expounding and applying the provisions of the Constitution, the debates and incidental decisions of the Convention can have no authoritative character... [T]he legitimate meaning of the Instrument must be derived from the text itself; or if a key is to be sought elsewhere, it must not be in the opinions or intentions of the Body which planned and proposed the Constitution, but in the sense attached to it by the people in their respective State Conventions where it received all the authority which it possesses." It is thus errant to cite the proceedings of the Philadelphia Convention as definitive of original intent. Accordingly, any true effort to honestly exegete original intent cannot simply end with reference to the proceedings of the Philadelphia Convention, whether derived from the notes of James Madison or Robert Yates. It is rather by reference to the proceedings of the state ratifying conventions, "where it received all the authority which it possesses," that we may ascertain original intent. At the state conventions the consensus understanding of that noble document becomes clearer as it was presented to the ratifiers of the document (i.e., the people of the several states assembled in convention); and it is more readily discerned than merely drudging through the mishmash dialectic of debate in the Philadelphia Convention where various proposals were being proffered, modified and rejected.
The problem of solely referencing the proceedings of the Philadelphia Convention in constitutional historiography is that it can frequently lead to a disingenuous recollection of original intent. It is not reflective of the Constitution as it was framed and subsequently ratified. As Patrick Henry said of the significance of the Virginia Convention of 1788, "The example of Virginia is a mighty thing," and frankly as much understanding is to be gained from its proceedings as those state ratifying conventions as of the Philadelphia Convention.
Seizing upon every faint echo of consolidationist sentiment at Philadelphia is not only inaccurate, (as the federal principle ultimately prevailed over the unitary national-principle with ratification,) but it is tantamount to a fallacy of exclusion. The Philadelphia Convention enjoyed the benefit of secrecy. Some of those strong nationalist men in attendance took license with the fact that their centralizing sentiments were aloof from the common man. Of the tendency of consolidating nationalists to overplay their hand at Philadelphia, an elder Madison prudently explained in a letter to J.G. Jackson written in 1821:
"That most of us carried into the Convention a profound impression produced by the experienced inadequacy of the old Confederation, and by the monitory examples of all similar ones ancient & modern, as to the necessity of binding the States together by a strong Constitution is certain... The view of the crisis made it natural for many in the [Philadelphia] Convention to lean more than was perhaps in strictness warranted by a proper distinction between causes temporary as some of them doubtless were, and causes permanently inherent in popular frames of Govt... For myself, having from the first moment of a maturing opinion, down to the present one, never ceased to be a votary of the principle of self-Govt: I was among those most anxious to rescue it from the danger which seemed to threaten it; and with that view was willing to give a Govt resting on that foundation, as much energy as would ensure the requisite stability and efficacy. It is possible that in some instances this consideration may have been allowed a weight greater than subsequent reflection within the Convention, or the actual operation of the Govt. would sanction."
This book is not without redemption, as the author hardly doctors the proceedings, just misappropriates the historiographical judgment of the Philadelphia Convention's true significance and legacy. It would be nicely complimented by a historiographical corrective which emphasizes the primacy of the state ratifying conventions as our guide for ascertaining original intent. M.E. Bradford's Original Intentions : On the Making and Ratification of the United States Constitution is a helpful reference in this regard. Likewise, primary source documentation can be found in _The Documentary History of the Ratification of the Constitution_ produced by the Wisconsin Historical Society.
Rating: 5 / 5
Date: 2009-08-09
Summary: "Very perceptive look at the Convention (4.5*s)"
Since the publication of this book over forty years ago, countless books have been written on the proceedings of the US Constitutional Convention of the summer of 1787. One would be hardpressed to say that any of those books combine the insight, detail, and readability of this book. The author captures, so well, the entire scope of the Convention: the setting both within and outside the Convention hall, the personality and competency of the delegates, the constitutional issues, the sequence and substance of the debates, and the Convention's unquestionable importance to the very survival of a fledgling America.
Perhaps one could quibble over the author's choice of detail. She emphasizes the concern of small states concerning the nature of representation in Congress far more than the manner in which the President is elected. Some of the important deal-making in that regard among delegates is ignored. The Committee of Postponed Parts that met in the first week of Sept, 1787, is not specifically mentioned. John Rutledge of South Carolina in his work at the end of July in the Committee of Detail that transformed the Virginia Resolves into a near constitution perhaps does not get his due.
On the other hand, the debates concerning the fifteen Virginia Resolves presented on the opening day of the Convention are explicitly discussed, resolve by resolve. Because all provisions were subject to being reopened despite previous agreement, the author makes considerable effort to indicate the resolution of a constant stream of motions. The subtle differences between considering provisions within the Convention and within the Committee of the Whole are explained.
Several Convention delegates receive the author's attention: Washington for his quiet dignity and subtle influence; Franklin for his apt remarks; Madison for his keen knowledge of government and timely management of the Convention; James Wilson for his incisiveness; Gouverneur Morris for his passion and his succinct formulation of the final version of the Constitution; and Alexander Hamilton for becoming essentially an irrelevancy at the Convention due to his monarchial ideas. Perhaps surprisingly, there were few true obstructionists at the Convention, but some like Luther Martin of Maryland are covered.
An overriding concern of the small states that permeates the entire book is the ramifications of the diminishment of state sovereignty under a "national" government. Gerry of Massachusetts and Mason of Virginia, both of large states, were truly concerned with the potential tyranny of centralized power. The addition of a Bill of Rights, supposedly as a guarantor against unconstrained governmental power, in connection with Constitutional state ratifying conventions is briefly examined.
The book is decidedly not "flag-waving" or "neo-Federalist." The Articles of Confederation outlined a totally ineffectual form of government that made it virtually impossible for the United States to conduct interstate or international commerce, to collect taxes if for no reason other than to pay war debts, and to have even a minimal military presence. The author describes the extraordinary prescience and perseverance of some of Americas leading elites, namely Hamilton, Madison, and Washington, in forcing America to face the fact that the existing government was entirely inadequate for a nation to remain viable, let alone advance, in a hostile world. There is little doubt that the US would not exist today in its current form without the "Miracle at Philadelphia."
Rating: 5 / 5
Date: 2009-07-27
Summary: "One of the best books ever written on one of the most important summers in our history"
Madison, Washington, Franklin, and many of the other gentlemen who took part remarked on it: It really was a near miracle that so politically disparate a collection of politicians could come together for one short summer and produce a document that they all knew wasn't perfect, that included sections and clauses all of them could and did consider wrongheaded -- they disagreed on which sections those were, of course -- and still end up with the underpinnings of a completely reinvented form of government for their struggling nation. It was obvious, to most of them, that the Articles of Confederation were fatally flawed, that the separate states were simply too independent from one another, that each would have to give up some of its jealously guarded sovereignty in order to survive at all. All the delegates arrived in Philadelphia (those who showed up; Rhode Island's never did) with instructions merely to revise the Articles. As a result, secrecy was everything. The delegates couldn't allow anyone outside to discover what they were really up to, finally. Bowen leads the reader carefully through all the major arguments, drawing vivid portraits of the participants, showing why Washington's presence as chairman had a major impact, and delineating the few issues that simply were too divisive for some of them. You can practically hear Madison's razor brain ticking over as he listened and took his copious notes; he never missed a single session, fortunately for us. And you can hear the groans as Luther Martin of Maryland got up to attack, again, any idea of "nationalism," as opposed to what he regarded as true "federalism." And Bowen is also careful to explain the differences when the language and terminology the delegates used in their debates have evolved away from those meanings. For that reason alone, every conservative who regards himself as a strict constructionist ought to read this book; he might discover that the delegates would be horrified at the notion that their many compromises are regarded by some today as holy writ set in stone. But this is the kind of book that any thoughtful American should read every ten years or so.
Rating: 4 / 5
Date: 2009-07-16
Summary: "Founding Fathers Brought to Life"
I found this book quite interesting on a couple of levels. First, the daily interraction between the men involved throughout the process of writing the Constitution was brought to life in an engaging way. While some may not find a chronicle of what a group of men said while they sat around a room for four months exciting, I was completely absorbed. Perhaps it was the magnitude of the subject matter that made it so irresistable.
Second, I really enjoyed the chapters that were dedicated to an overview of what life was like in rural and urban America at the time of the convention. Too often people in the modern age look back at history without taking into consideration the prevailing perspectives of the day. This material tried to shed some light on the value system shared by most Americans in the late 1700s.
The book is not so short that it doesn't give enough information and not so long that it bogs down in too much unnecessary detail. If you are curious about the foundations of the government of the United States and its formation, this is a nice place to start.