I quarrel with that. The committees are where the work really happened. A central question of the convention: were slaves people or were they property. He came up with the Electoral College. It broke down almost immediately, which required the twelfth amendment to get it to at least work badly. He loved to party. He was a New Yorker there as a Pennsylvania delegate. Extremely rich.
He simplifies and clarifies. He tended to be quiet, and it was a room full of noisy people. Except that he did. Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.
Email Address. Sign me up! The author does not treat the Framers as demigods that many historians have done in the past. He presents them, flaws and all, and recognizes, as the framers did, that it was a flawed document filled with compromises but they recognized that with the amendment process those things could be fixed. They did not view it, as the Antonin Scalias of the world do, as written in stone. The most obvious flaw is of course the institutionalization of slavery.
Rutledge seized the opportunity to strengthen and deeply imbed slavery into our countries founding documents and the convention went along with it. Whether the country could have survived if those with more honorable beliefs about the institution had prevailed we will never know but by agreeing to accept the provisions, the delegates not kindly disposed to the "peculiar" institution may have set the country up for the catastrophe that was the Civil War in Jun 19, Paul Haspel rated it really liked it Shelves: summer , constitution-day , united-states-constitution.
The summer of was truly a crucial time in American history — for the Articles of Confederation, the original framing document for the federal government of the United States, had proven altogether unequal to the task of providing a strong and unified government for the young country.
A few dozen delegates gathered that summer in Philadelphia, with the official task of amending the Articles. But they exceeded their brief in a bold and decisive way; and — seemingly against all odds — they eme The summer of was truly a crucial time in American history — for the Articles of Confederation, the original framing document for the federal government of the United States, had proven altogether unequal to the task of providing a strong and unified government for the young country.
Stewart chronicles in his book The Summer of Stewart, a Washington, D. Or was it creating a new, stronger government? Would the states be abolished? How best to reconcile two sovereigns exercising power over the same territory at the same time? Lord Baltimore needs a colony for English Catholics? Well, take part of northern Virginia and give that to him. William Penn wants a coastline for Pennsylvania? Then take three counties from Maryland and let him have those.
Call it — let me see, let me see — call it Delaware! By contrast, small, thinly populated states like Delaware, New Jersey, and Rhode Island feared that a strongly centralized American government would permit larger states to gobble up their smaller neighbors, like a big fish swallowing up little fish.
That divide between large and small states threatened to derail the entire Convention — especially when the large states formed an alliance with the three Deep South states of South Carolina, North Carolina, and Georgia, all of which were interested in protecting the institution of slavery within their states. Gunning Bedford of Delaware denounced the alliance between the large states and the slave states, asking if they would crush the small states, and then really turned up the rhetorical heat: Not content with denouncing his colleagues personally, Bedford turned treasonous.
Four years after that war, were the states going to turn on each other, allied with competing European powers? The prospect was outrageous. This arrangement enabled the Constitutional deliberations to go forward — and ensured that, centuries hence, many residents of California population Another feature of the U.
Constitution that occasions much comment nowadays is the institution of the Electoral College — the means by which the President of the United States is elected not by the American people themselves, but rather by electors chosen by the 50 states. The electors would be wise, or so the argument proceeded, where the masses were ignorant and easily misled. Madison applauded the approach as providing more insurance for Southern states.
Is there not something wrong with a system where a presidential candidate can lose an election by , votes as in , or by 2. This discussion of the Electoral College calls to mind the rhetorical gymnastics in which the Framers were forced to engage in order to placate leading slaveholder framers like John Rutledge of South Carolina.
The extension of the slave trade until was another sop to the slaveholders — one that ensured that thousands more innocent men, women, and children, for twenty more years, would be kidnapped from their homes, consigned to the unspeakable horrors of the Middle Passage, and condemned to a lifetime of bondage when they arrived in the United States.
Stewart describes well the contradictions involved here: Slavery was the original sin in which the nation was conceived. Gouverneur Morris and Rufus King knew it, and said so.
John Dickinson and William Livingston knew it; they had freed their slaves. The delegates who belonged to abolition societies — Franklin, [Alexander] Hamilton, and Livingston — certainly knew it. Roger Sherman called the slave trade iniquitous; he knew it. The men from South Carolina surely knew it.
Charles Pinckney said he would vote against the slave trade within his own state; John Rutledge would not discuss the morality of slavery, an argument he knew he could only lose.
Mason worked hard on the Constitution, but ultimately decided that he could not sign it, because it did not have a Bill of Rights. As Stewart points out, The story of the Constitution did not end on September 17, [the day the final draft of the Constitution was signed]…. Other countries, including fellow democracies, have had a number of constitutions France has had 15 since the year ; the United States of America has had one. The U. And, as of this writing, the United States Constitution seems likely to survive the presidency of Donald Trump.
Constitution — even though the Constitution only has seven articles. Each time, sooner or later, constitutional restraints have contained the official who, hungry for power, attempted to exceed his or her Constitutional authority. The center has held — sometimes, seemingly against all odds — for years now, in the form of the U. And that, as Stewart suggests in this fine work of history, is something to celebrate. View all 3 comments. So after recent criticism thrown to the Founding Fathers made me think about what they were thinking when they left Slavery and the traffic of slaves in the Constitution.
That I decided I needed to either read the Constitution and figure it out myself or get a one of the best historical writers to give me a tour of Independence Hall in Philadelphia. Give me the gossip and the possible thoughts behind the framers of the Constitution. The reasons why some things were placed in and the feeling at t So after recent criticism thrown to the Founding Fathers made me think about what they were thinking when they left Slavery and the traffic of slaves in the Constitution.
The reasons why some things were placed in and the feeling at the time that pressed all the members of the Philadelphia Convention to agree on things that each felt should or should not be in the Constitution. Stewart frames his book starting with Madison's blueprint of the Constitution. Leading into the start of the Convention, the election of Washington as the President of the Convention, the secrecy rule, and the thoughts of many of the members.
But through this book I have come to know most of the real people who by force of speech, by eloquence and by threats wrote the Constitution. The Delegates arrived with orders, Yes, orders from their States to walk straight out if a particular item was even mentioned in the debates. The small States would not allow themselves to lose power to the big States. The South would not give up Slaves, the Eastern States would not allow taxation on their primary business. That and more was the backdrop that pushed the Delegates during the talks that made this almost sacred text.
How Washington by his undeniable force of presence kept the debates from becoming altercations. The friendships that got strained and the acquaintances that became alliances that powered ideas and positions into the job. It is fascinating to read words left in diaries that describe for example Madison or Hamilton. Those that wrote the Federalist Papers under the pseudonym Publius were not exactly the most forceful within the Convention.
To find out John Rutledge and James Wilson worked backdoor deals and formed an alliance that almost carried the Convention on its back. How the economy forced the hand of this giants among men. How a document that while flawed still guides this land to greatness. Why George Mason one of the most esteemed patriots of the time refused to sign the Constitution.
His words universally praised and his changes to the final draft of the Constitution have made it one of the most admired texts in the world. Is is easy to say I really enjoyed the book.
While I won't read my next historical book of this times immediately I am filed with great expectation for when I return to the period and read on Madison. Sep 29, Russ rated it liked it. Like the summer of itself, this book took a while to get warmed up.
At first it was hard to tell whether it would proceed chronologically, topically, or as a series of mini-biographies. Eventually it became clear that it was mostly chronological with a focus on the topics and personalities that dominated the Convention during particular days and weeks of that summer.
The most striking thing about this book is how disproportionate the amount of discussion at the Convention was to the actual p Like the summer of itself, this book took a while to get warmed up. The most striking thing about this book is how disproportionate the amount of discussion at the Convention was to the actual provisions of the U. A great deal of time was spent debating the Virginia Plan, the basis of Congressional representation, the powers of the Senate, and the method of selecting presidents.
Strikingly little time was spent defining the overall powers of the central government, the powers of the president, and the nature of the judiciary, or the protections of the rights of the people. The large states were adamant about basing representation on population. However, there were only three really big states, which wasn't enough to carry approval from a majority of states at the Convention, each of whom had one vote per delegation.
James Wilson of Pennsylvania came up with an idea to persuade a few of the small states to join with the large states. He buddied up with John Rutledge of South Carolina. In exchange for certain guarantees, the slave states would join with the large states in supporting population-based representation. But the small states pressed at it and kept debating until eventually persuading the Convention in particular a Georgia delegate originally from Connecticut to reconsider.
Benjamin Franklin played a key role in inspiring the compromise of a House of Representatives based on population with exclusive authority to originate money bills and a Senate based on equal representation of states.
Turning their focus to the presidency, some wanted the person to be selected by Congress. Some wanted election by the people but that was seen as too democratic and the concept of electors was invented. That of course dragged them back to the issue of representation.
All kinds of exotic formulae were proposed, but eventually the electoral college was pieced together, and it was the only protocol that could garner enough support from the Convention for passage. In other words, they did the best they could. Less time was spent debating what the president would actually do.
Many other topics were debated and settled by the convention, which were put into words by Rutledge in a Committee of Detail. Gouverneur Morris who'd lost many of the Convention's floor debates took the lengthy, disparate provisions of that committee's draft, rearranging and condensing them elegantly into the document we know today. James Madison, "Father of the Constitution," was more like the secretary of the Convention, taking meticulous notes, failing to win support for his own specific proposals, but winning at his broader objective of creating a stronger central government than existed under the Articles of Confederation.
This book had a tendency to focus on issues which are more important to contemporary audiences and downplayed issues that were important to the framers. For example, the book treated the issuance of paper money as an insignificant matter. This deserved more attention because it was very important to the leaders of the time, and because it went straight to the powers of the states and central government.
The book also seemed to take for granted that "everybody" wanted a new government. That there were men who wanted to preserve the Articles of Confederation was given little attention. I wouldn't say that this book "put me there" in the Convention. I didn't feel like a fly on the wall. Sometimes I got confused about which delegates held which beliefs. Nevertheless, it was very illuminating about the key issues debated at the Convention and it provided a much needed play-by-play about how we settled on the framework of government that exists to this day.
The Constitution probably shouldn't be read alone without reading a book like this. Jul 11, Ron rated it liked it. Mar 26, Christine rated it really liked it Shelves: audio , history-america. I am so glad I listened to Stewart's Virginia Historical Society's talk which convinced me to start reading his books. They are awesome books about US history. This one is about the writing of Constitution. Stewart details the major movers and shakers, and gives drafting the drama of an adventure story.
It's a really good look at the major document. This book is very well researched and very well written. The author neither glorifies the framers nor disparages them. Rather, he mostly lets the facts speak for themselves. Among those facts were the compromises over slavery, including the three-fifths compromise in which a slave who could not vote was to be counted as three-fifths of a white person for purposes of apportioning the numbers of Representatives allotted to each state in the House of Representatives.
The effects of the three-fift This book is very well researched and very well written. The effects of the three-fifths clause also carried over into the election of the President, since the number of electors for each state in the electoral college was based on the total number of that state's Representatives and Senators. Indeed, one of the reasons for the electoral college was that it would incorporate the three-fifths ratio. A direct popular vote for president, which was supported by James Wilson, James Madison, and a few other delegates, would not have given the South that extra boost in selecting the president.
Stewart observes that some sort of compromise over slavery was necessary if a union of all the states was to be formed. However, in the last chapter of his book pages , Stewart delineates some of the historical consequences of the compromises embedded in the original Constitution: "Most obviously, preservation of the slave trade meant the continued importation of many thousands of Africans in chains.
The Fugitive Slave Clause gave slave owners a critical tool for enforcing their dominion over the people they held in bondage. The three-fifths ratio gave slave states fourteen extra seats in the House in , twenty-seven additional seats in , and twenty-five added seats in House seats created by the three-fifths rule allowed Missouri to be admitted as a slave state in , and ensured enactment of the gag rule that choked off antislavery petitions to Congress.
Some insist that the delegates did the best they could under the circumstances. The author concludes that "[f]or all they have been celebrated, the delegates bear responsibility for having entrenched slavery ever deeper, for not even beginning to express disapproval of it.
But Stewart is careful in his examination of the history of the Constitutional Convention. He observes, in more than one place, that the New England states, which benefited economically from the slave trade due to their shipping interests, were more than willing to accommodate Georgia and South Carolina on slavery.
Strangely, it was James Madison and George Mason, both slaveholding Virginians, who had the most compunctions about slavery. Although Thomas Jefferson, another slaveholding Virginian, was also on record against this practice, he did not attend the Convention because he was representing the United States in Paris at the time. But although Madison, Mason, and Jefferson were conflicted about slavery, they never with a few exceptions actually freed their own slaves.
That was the legacy of another Virginian, George Washington, whose Will contained provisions that led to the emancipation of his slaves within two years after his death. Washington was the presiding officer of the Convention. Constitution and the difficulties they faced. He said he attempted to use the words of the delegates wherever possible, including letters and other writings before, during and after the Philadelphia convention.
He included information about relatively unknown delegates such as John Rutledge who was a defender of slavery, James Wilson, and Abraham Baldwin. He talked about the Pennsylvania, Virginia, and South Carolina delegations, the three delegations he felt had the greatest impact. He also noted that there was tremendous conflict at the convention over slavery. C-SPAN has agreements with retailers that share a small percentage of your purchase price with our network.
For purposes of this website, "Founding Fathers" are individuals who had a significant impact on the Constitution either directly or indirectly.
The following list is by no means complete, but it does identify people who played a large role in the development of the Constitution at this crucial time in American history. Call to order: or order pocket constitution books online. All rights reserved. Oak Hill Publishing Company. Box , Naperville, IL For questions or comments about this site please email us at info constitutionfacts.
Perfect for any Government class in high school and a handy reference. I carry a copy in my attache case at all times. I have used and read through this so many times that I needed to buy another copy.
0コメント