What do you think?
Rate this book
Records of the Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787 as Reported By James Madison
This book is the official record of the debates at the 1787 Federal Convention. The Federal Convention at Philadelphia, also known as the Constitutional Convention, took place from May 25 to September 17, 1787, in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Although the Convention was intended to revise the Articles of Confederation, the intention from the outset of many of its proponents, chief among them James Madison and Alexander Hamilton, was to create a new government rather than fix the existing one. The delegates elected George Washington to preside over the Convention. The result of the Convention was the creation of the United States Constitution, placing the Convention among the most significant events in the history of the United States.
745 pages, Hardcover
Published January 1, 1989
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 of 1 review
February 7, 2026
To begin with this is not a work of fiction or of history. It is what its title says it is. It is a record of the daily business of a convention of 18th century men attempting to create a government acceptable to the people of 13 supposedly united states. If anything else it is a work of historic significance but it is not a book fairly capable of being rated as a literary creation. The 3 stars that I give it only means that it was exactly what I expected it to be and I was not disappointed at anything other than my own ability to fully appreciate what is contained in these pages and there were a lot of pages. Anyone who attempts to read Madison's Notes will probably come away with different opinions as to the merits of such an endeavor. I think it is an endeavor worth making but the task could have been made easier.
I have for several years been bothered by the creation of "originalism" as a method for the SCOTUS to interpret the Constitution. This legal theory is based on the attempt to divine the intentions of the authors of the Constitution and then apply those intentions to the modern world. Of course this is nonsense but the theory is being used by our conservative justices to rationalize their opinions. I thought I'd try to get a better idea of what exactly the Constitution's authors had in mind when they created this document. With that in mind I decided to read Madison's Notes of the 1787 Constitutional Convention. Now that I've finished reading these notes I am more convinced than ever that Originalism is a fantasy.
I want to warn anybody thinking of following my lead in this effort because it is a difficult undertaking. For unknown reasons the page numbering of these notes begins at 109 and ends at page 745. I know these notes weren't published until after Madison's death and all I can think of to explain the notes beginning at page 109 is that maybe there were other Madison papers in the volume containing the notes. If anybody knows anything about this I would certainly be interested in learning what it is. From there you will need to deal with Madison's abbreviations, his shorthand treatment of certain words, the formal language of 18th century gentlemen, the excessive motions, debates, and voting on phrasing, word choices, deletions, substitutions, and endless reconsideration of matters previously voted on and settled. Then there are the disjointed substantive discussions of the delegates. It was rare for an issue to be discussed to a final resolution. Instead the discussion would proceed to a point and then it would be decided to leave it for another day so that another matter might be discussed. For this reason it is very difficult to follow the train of thought that went into most of the concepts now enshrined in the Constitution. It would be a marvelous gift to the country if some qualified historian could take these notes and synthesize them into a readable and understandable form. If all the abbreviations and shorthand symbols along with all the procedural and technical proceedings could be eliminated and then all the substantive discussions assembled alongside the final Constitutional language as a guide or outline for the assembly then a much better understanding of the evolution of our Constitution could be achieved. Sadly, that kind of book was not available to me but if anybody knows of such a treatment of Madison's Notes I would like to hear about it.
What I did learn from reading these notes is that these delegates were hardly from states that really considered themselves united with the other 12. Rarely, and I mean rarely, did any delegate address the convention with language that encouraged them to understand that they were now a united people and needed to abandon their provincial ideas and fears. Slavery was dealt with like a hot potato and deference to the South on that subject was all but assumed. A lot of time and consideration was given to the large state v small state issues even though Rhode Island didn't bother to show up for any part of the convention. During the discussions of the convention it started to dawn on the delegates that the large state v small state concerns were probably not as potentially problematic as the North v South and the potential new states v the original 13 states issues. There was even discussion of limiting the rights of new states so that they wouldn't overpower the older states. Rights and powers that are frequent issues before the SCOTUS today are given lip service if they are mentioned at all during the convention's proceedings. It appears that a lot of our fundamental rights were assumed inviolate by the delegates and not in need of serious discussion or debate. In all seriousness one delegate even suggested on more than one occasion that they include a provision for sumptuary laws in the Constitution. Wouldn't the conservatives on the SCOTUS have loved to deal with that today.
The delegates were aware that the document they were attempting to create would have to stand the test of time but they were more worried about what it would do in their time. I think that they had an unrealistic faith in the amendment process to correct their errors and oversights. Unfortunately, the amendment process they created only had 13 states and maybe a few more in mind. None of these men envisioned the country expanding beyond the Mississippi. If they had maybe amending the Constitution wouldn't have been made so difficult. They knew what they were doing wasn't perfect and fixes would be needed so if we're going to divine the intentions of these men I think it would be fair to say that they really didn't mean to making fixing the Constitution a near impossibility. As for the divinations of the SCOTUS regarding what these 18th century delegates would have done with issues arising out of modern society well that's just a lot of wishful rationalizing of preconceived personal beliefs. Enjoy.
I have for several years been bothered by the creation of "originalism" as a method for the SCOTUS to interpret the Constitution. This legal theory is based on the attempt to divine the intentions of the authors of the Constitution and then apply those intentions to the modern world. Of course this is nonsense but the theory is being used by our conservative justices to rationalize their opinions. I thought I'd try to get a better idea of what exactly the Constitution's authors had in mind when they created this document. With that in mind I decided to read Madison's Notes of the 1787 Constitutional Convention. Now that I've finished reading these notes I am more convinced than ever that Originalism is a fantasy.
I want to warn anybody thinking of following my lead in this effort because it is a difficult undertaking. For unknown reasons the page numbering of these notes begins at 109 and ends at page 745. I know these notes weren't published until after Madison's death and all I can think of to explain the notes beginning at page 109 is that maybe there were other Madison papers in the volume containing the notes. If anybody knows anything about this I would certainly be interested in learning what it is. From there you will need to deal with Madison's abbreviations, his shorthand treatment of certain words, the formal language of 18th century gentlemen, the excessive motions, debates, and voting on phrasing, word choices, deletions, substitutions, and endless reconsideration of matters previously voted on and settled. Then there are the disjointed substantive discussions of the delegates. It was rare for an issue to be discussed to a final resolution. Instead the discussion would proceed to a point and then it would be decided to leave it for another day so that another matter might be discussed. For this reason it is very difficult to follow the train of thought that went into most of the concepts now enshrined in the Constitution. It would be a marvelous gift to the country if some qualified historian could take these notes and synthesize them into a readable and understandable form. If all the abbreviations and shorthand symbols along with all the procedural and technical proceedings could be eliminated and then all the substantive discussions assembled alongside the final Constitutional language as a guide or outline for the assembly then a much better understanding of the evolution of our Constitution could be achieved. Sadly, that kind of book was not available to me but if anybody knows of such a treatment of Madison's Notes I would like to hear about it.
What I did learn from reading these notes is that these delegates were hardly from states that really considered themselves united with the other 12. Rarely, and I mean rarely, did any delegate address the convention with language that encouraged them to understand that they were now a united people and needed to abandon their provincial ideas and fears. Slavery was dealt with like a hot potato and deference to the South on that subject was all but assumed. A lot of time and consideration was given to the large state v small state issues even though Rhode Island didn't bother to show up for any part of the convention. During the discussions of the convention it started to dawn on the delegates that the large state v small state concerns were probably not as potentially problematic as the North v South and the potential new states v the original 13 states issues. There was even discussion of limiting the rights of new states so that they wouldn't overpower the older states. Rights and powers that are frequent issues before the SCOTUS today are given lip service if they are mentioned at all during the convention's proceedings. It appears that a lot of our fundamental rights were assumed inviolate by the delegates and not in need of serious discussion or debate. In all seriousness one delegate even suggested on more than one occasion that they include a provision for sumptuary laws in the Constitution. Wouldn't the conservatives on the SCOTUS have loved to deal with that today.
The delegates were aware that the document they were attempting to create would have to stand the test of time but they were more worried about what it would do in their time. I think that they had an unrealistic faith in the amendment process to correct their errors and oversights. Unfortunately, the amendment process they created only had 13 states and maybe a few more in mind. None of these men envisioned the country expanding beyond the Mississippi. If they had maybe amending the Constitution wouldn't have been made so difficult. They knew what they were doing wasn't perfect and fixes would be needed so if we're going to divine the intentions of these men I think it would be fair to say that they really didn't mean to making fixing the Constitution a near impossibility. As for the divinations of the SCOTUS regarding what these 18th century delegates would have done with issues arising out of modern society well that's just a lot of wishful rationalizing of preconceived personal beliefs. Enjoy.
Displaying 1 of 1 review