What do you think?
Rate this book
1787: The Grand Convention
“Consistently provocative . . . The political method of the framers and its historical appropriateness are luminously explained. ― Journal of American History In this masterly account of the Philadelphia summer when our Constitution was born, Clinton Rossiter establishes his claim that the year 1787 is preeminent in American history. Bringing to life the setting and the challenge, he shows how the delegates hammered out the document on which our government and institutions rest today.
Paperback
Published May 17, 1987
3 people are currently reading
87 people want to read
About the author
Clinton L. Rossiter
34 books10 followersClinton Lawrence Rossiter III was an award-winning American historian and political scientist who taught at Cornell University from 1947 until his death in 1970.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews
April 27, 2015
Clinton Rossiter had an unequalled grasp of the minutae of American government, and a corresponding ability to write about its origins and workings in a clear manner. Reading any of his books in conjunction with Political Science classes in college enriched my learning experiences back then. I unearthed a 1968 printing of a Mentor Book paperback that had been packed away for decades (it had cost me a whopping $1.25) and read it. I would not call it a re-read since I had not consumed it cover-to-cover earlier, for whatever reason. Several decades have not diminished the author's eloquence or relevance.
I'm not going to say any Constitutional student should necessarily shun any more current histories of the 1787 Constitutional Convention in favor of this book, but if you do read Rossiter's book, you will be infected with the enthusiasm he brings to the subject. His style of narration leaves the impression he is personally telling you of the momentous times that created a nation. He won several prizes for his literary research for various books and was a popular, well-respected professor of American Government at Cornell University.
Rossiter provides much detail about the 55 individuals who were assigned by their state legislatures to travel to Philadelphia in 1787; they represented twelve of the thirteen states. Rhode Island didn't send any delegates. Sure, there are lots of things which Constitutional scholars and students should ponder, concerning the manner in which the proceedings worked and the great issues and compromises that ensued. But underlying it all was the fascinating fact that these delegates to this convention immediately became involved in the activity of framers. Essentially, there were Nationalists, (defined by a common ideology, not a political party), those who knew a whole new framework for a government with national reach and authority needed to be built, and non-Nationalists who would be just happy to add a few layers of spackle to the crumbling walls of the existing Articles of Confederation that far-sighted individuals such as James Madison, George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, Alexander Hamilton and many others knew was already well past its usefulness.
Sure, the nationalist-oriented leaders took the reins of the convention early and kept it on track for building a whole new constitution, but much debate and thought would eventually be necessary before a product as succinct and far reaching as our present Constitution would result. Various individual state delegates, and state delegations, had serious reservations about proceeding where Madison and company were taking them. In the end, consensus was reached (although a few delegates refused to sign the finished document) and the Constitution was sent to the various states for ratification.
Contrary to what some history books may imply, ratification was not a slam dunk. Some very powerful anti-nationalist-minded individuals who thankfully did not join their state delegations at the Convention nevertheless offered very powerful, eloquent challenges to ratification in their states. This was when Constitution-ratification supporters started to become known more formally as "Federalists". Some of the most vehement opposition to their plan occurred in Virginia, in the form of the formidable Patrick Henry and Richard Henry Lee. Except in Pennsylvania, where political maneuvering gave the pro-ratifiers the upper hand, the proponents of a new national Constitution bent over backward to use their persuasive skills to win over state legislatures.
One reason that the Nationalists carried the day was because it is easier to identify with a cause which stands for something than it is to build a cause without its own solutions. The Nationalists called themselves Federalists; their opponents had no cohesive leadership and therefore no easily identifiable banner to rally around. They would eventually be known as Anti-Federalists, never a reassuring name.
What made the Constitution so powerful, as Rossiter explains, was that it was designed as the last act of the fairly recent Revolution. We contemporaries can never imagine what weight must have been lifted off the shoulders of every American when that struggle finally ended with the granting of independence instead of subjugation. An already existing national identity could become manifested in a national government.
Rossiter, in much more elegant form, lists the three great legacies of 1776: independence, republicanism and union. The Constitution put the "stamp of irrevocable legitimacy" (p. 225) on them. Although the members of the state legislatures that debated and ultimately ratified the document as the law of the land were also land owning elites, citizens throughout the country were no doubt overwhelmingly in favor of taking the irrevocable plunge. As Rossiter points out, overcoming the inertia of continuing the present governmental system was facilitated by the fact that there was great disenchantment with the Articles of Confederation in many, if not all, sectors of the country.
It was this sentiment that gave the 1787 Convention delegates the encouragement to become framers of a new charter of government. They decidedly shed the idea of maintaining a confederate government by producing articles which called for three main branches, the delegation of sovereign authority to Congress and the President, in the creation of prohibitions on the states, and in the bold assertion of the supremacy of the Constitution and ensuing laws and treaties.The Framers sensed American moods and aspirations and gave them, in the form of the Constitution, the assertive nudge toward "emotional and political unity" (p. 227) that they had been hoping for.
I'm not going to say any Constitutional student should necessarily shun any more current histories of the 1787 Constitutional Convention in favor of this book, but if you do read Rossiter's book, you will be infected with the enthusiasm he brings to the subject. His style of narration leaves the impression he is personally telling you of the momentous times that created a nation. He won several prizes for his literary research for various books and was a popular, well-respected professor of American Government at Cornell University.
Rossiter provides much detail about the 55 individuals who were assigned by their state legislatures to travel to Philadelphia in 1787; they represented twelve of the thirteen states. Rhode Island didn't send any delegates. Sure, there are lots of things which Constitutional scholars and students should ponder, concerning the manner in which the proceedings worked and the great issues and compromises that ensued. But underlying it all was the fascinating fact that these delegates to this convention immediately became involved in the activity of framers. Essentially, there were Nationalists, (defined by a common ideology, not a political party), those who knew a whole new framework for a government with national reach and authority needed to be built, and non-Nationalists who would be just happy to add a few layers of spackle to the crumbling walls of the existing Articles of Confederation that far-sighted individuals such as James Madison, George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, Alexander Hamilton and many others knew was already well past its usefulness.
Sure, the nationalist-oriented leaders took the reins of the convention early and kept it on track for building a whole new constitution, but much debate and thought would eventually be necessary before a product as succinct and far reaching as our present Constitution would result. Various individual state delegates, and state delegations, had serious reservations about proceeding where Madison and company were taking them. In the end, consensus was reached (although a few delegates refused to sign the finished document) and the Constitution was sent to the various states for ratification.
Contrary to what some history books may imply, ratification was not a slam dunk. Some very powerful anti-nationalist-minded individuals who thankfully did not join their state delegations at the Convention nevertheless offered very powerful, eloquent challenges to ratification in their states. This was when Constitution-ratification supporters started to become known more formally as "Federalists". Some of the most vehement opposition to their plan occurred in Virginia, in the form of the formidable Patrick Henry and Richard Henry Lee. Except in Pennsylvania, where political maneuvering gave the pro-ratifiers the upper hand, the proponents of a new national Constitution bent over backward to use their persuasive skills to win over state legislatures.
One reason that the Nationalists carried the day was because it is easier to identify with a cause which stands for something than it is to build a cause without its own solutions. The Nationalists called themselves Federalists; their opponents had no cohesive leadership and therefore no easily identifiable banner to rally around. They would eventually be known as Anti-Federalists, never a reassuring name.
What made the Constitution so powerful, as Rossiter explains, was that it was designed as the last act of the fairly recent Revolution. We contemporaries can never imagine what weight must have been lifted off the shoulders of every American when that struggle finally ended with the granting of independence instead of subjugation. An already existing national identity could become manifested in a national government.
Rossiter, in much more elegant form, lists the three great legacies of 1776: independence, republicanism and union. The Constitution put the "stamp of irrevocable legitimacy" (p. 225) on them. Although the members of the state legislatures that debated and ultimately ratified the document as the law of the land were also land owning elites, citizens throughout the country were no doubt overwhelmingly in favor of taking the irrevocable plunge. As Rossiter points out, overcoming the inertia of continuing the present governmental system was facilitated by the fact that there was great disenchantment with the Articles of Confederation in many, if not all, sectors of the country.
It was this sentiment that gave the 1787 Convention delegates the encouragement to become framers of a new charter of government. They decidedly shed the idea of maintaining a confederate government by producing articles which called for three main branches, the delegation of sovereign authority to Congress and the President, in the creation of prohibitions on the states, and in the bold assertion of the supremacy of the Constitution and ensuing laws and treaties.The Framers sensed American moods and aspirations and gave them, in the form of the Constitution, the assertive nudge toward "emotional and political unity" (p. 227) that they had been hoping for.
February 4, 2021
A good quick read about the creation of our constitution.
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews