What do you think?
Rate this book
Decision in Philadelphia: The Constitutional Convention of 1787
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
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
448 pages, Paperback
First published January 12, 1986
38 people are currently reading
505 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 79 reviews
November 16, 2025
Deciding that the young United States of America needed a stronger central government was difficult enough; actually bringing about that outcome seemed impossible. And yet that seemingly impossible goal was achieved by 55 often quarrelsome delegates, as Christopher Collier and James Lincoln Collier chronicle in their book Decision in Philadelphia.
The Colliers quite sensibly proceed from a fundamentally important observation that shows why the initial governmental structure for the U.S.A., the Articles of Confederation (1777), provided such a hopelessly weak, inefficient, and ineffective government for Americans: “Their country had been formed piecemeal. The colonies were created at different times under different philosophies of life, ranging from the hard-bitten Calvinism of New England to the worldly hedonism of the Deep South” (p. 4). The Thirteen Colonies were founded over a period of 125 years, under seven different English or British royal governments with widely different priorities; they varied enormously in size, population, climate, resources, economy, culture, religious belief, and social structure.
The British government had never intended for these colonies to be anything but a source of cheap raw materials for the mother country; for that reason, from the British point of view, it did not matter that the colonies were as different in culture as New Hampshire and Georgia -- or as different in size as big, populous Pennsylvania and tiny, underpopulated Delaware. But once the colonies had revolted against Great Britain and secured their independence, a new question arose: how, given all those differences, could those thirteen colonies ever be brought together as a truly unified and harmonious nation?
Such was the task to which the Framers set themselves as they assembled in Philadelphia for The Constitutional Convention of 1787 (the book’s subtitle). Fortunately for American democracy, and for the future development of democracy around the globe, the Framers were a talented group of men who enjoyed great respect in their home states and throughout the country. As the Colliers put it, “It was as if today, to reach some important national decision, Americans were to bypass Congress and put together a conference of the wisest and most experienced people – college presidents, chairmen of large corporations, famous social scientists, distinguished public servants” (p. 104).
In this era when the U.S. Congress currently has a 29% approval rating -- and, to be fair, that is up from 17% earlier this year -- it is a method of national problem-solving that many Americans might approve of today.
The delegates faced three major issues, each of which threatened at various times to derail the entire Convention and send its members home from Philadelphia with nothing to show for their efforts. The first was the divide between large states and small states; the former wanted a government where power was apportioned according to population, while the latter wanted to maintain their equality of power under the Articles. The second was the divide between the Northern and Southern states; in a grim look ahead to a terrible Civil War that would rend the nation 80 years later, the Deep South – meaning, in this context, the Carolinas and Georgia – were jealously protective of their “peculiar institution” of slavery, and intended to combat any Northern efforts to restrict it. And the third was the entire question of how power would be distributed among the legislative, executive, and judicial branches of the new government.
Working thematically rather than chronologically, the Colliers set forth in an interesting and orderly manner the ways in which the Founders worked to resolve these issues. I found most interesting those passages of Decision in Philadelphia in which the authors expressed their opinions regarding might-have-beens, roads not taken, from that summer of 1787.
With regard to slavery, for example, the Colliers look at the weak situation of the three Deep South states – ravaged by Great Britain during the Revolutionary War, faced by hostile Spaniards and Native Americans on their frontiers, fearful of uprisings by enslaved African Americans – and conclude that “the northern delegates could have forced into the Constitution stricter limits on slavery” (p. 238), including a quicker end to the slave trade and a ban on slavery in any new states. “These two measures alone,” the authors write, “would have had the effect of confining slavery to the Southeast, and would perhaps have prevented the Civil War” (p. 239). Their assessment may be over-optimistic – Southern slaveholders displayed, early on, a determination to defend slavery by any means they might find necessary – but it is a thought-provoking suggestion nonetheless.
Something that might be of particular interest to modern readers relates to the Electoral College, a feature of American constitutional democracy that has been much in the news of late. The Colliers refer to the electoral college as “a Rube Goldberg machine. It was jerry-rigged out of odds and ends of parliamentary junk pressed together by contending interests” (p. 303). Later in the book, the authors express forthrightly their belief “that the institution of the electoral college ought to be discarded” (p. 360).
Writing back in 1986, at a time when Ronald Reagan had won the last two presidential elections by landslide popular and electoral-college majorities, the Colliers nonetheless looked ahead perceptively when they wrote that “A shift of one percent in the voting in a few pivotal states…is all it would take to produce a minority president. It has happened, and it is certain to happen again. It might be worth trying to find another way of doing things before we get into difficulties” (p. 361).
Prescient indeed, as two of the last seven presidential elections have seen the popular-vote loser win the presidency. In 2016, Donald Trump became president despite losing the popular vote by almost three million – or, to put it another way, three-quarters of the entire population of the United States of America at the time of the Constitution’s writing and ratification. What’s wrong with this picture? Much, I think.
There are ways in which the Colliers feel that modern American constitutional democracy has departed from the vision of the Founders. The Colliers speculate, for example, that the Framers “would almost certainly have been astonished and outraged” at “the tendency of recent American presidents to commit troops to battle without formal permission from Congress” (p. 331). Overall, though, the Colliers paint a highly favorable picture of the Framers as thoughtful men who wrote a Constitution that “worked because the men who wrote it had got human nature right. They believed that human beings had much good in them, but they also were sure that it was the bad that you had to watch out for” (p. 354).
I re-read Decision in Philadelphia on a trip to Philadelphia – a city where the history of the Thirteen Colonies and the early United States of America is all around one. Walking the streets that the Framers walked, I reflected on the grandeur of their achievements. We live in an era when many commentators are expressing concern about the future of American democracy – a concern that has also been expressed in other eras. Can the system of checks and balances, the system so carefully established by the Framers, hold against a president with an authoritarian approach to leadership and an evident impatience with the “disorder” of democracy? I choose to believe, and to hope, that --in this time, as in other times before our own -- the constitutional center will somehow manage to hold.
The Colliers quite sensibly proceed from a fundamentally important observation that shows why the initial governmental structure for the U.S.A., the Articles of Confederation (1777), provided such a hopelessly weak, inefficient, and ineffective government for Americans: “Their country had been formed piecemeal. The colonies were created at different times under different philosophies of life, ranging from the hard-bitten Calvinism of New England to the worldly hedonism of the Deep South” (p. 4). The Thirteen Colonies were founded over a period of 125 years, under seven different English or British royal governments with widely different priorities; they varied enormously in size, population, climate, resources, economy, culture, religious belief, and social structure.
The British government had never intended for these colonies to be anything but a source of cheap raw materials for the mother country; for that reason, from the British point of view, it did not matter that the colonies were as different in culture as New Hampshire and Georgia -- or as different in size as big, populous Pennsylvania and tiny, underpopulated Delaware. But once the colonies had revolted against Great Britain and secured their independence, a new question arose: how, given all those differences, could those thirteen colonies ever be brought together as a truly unified and harmonious nation?
Such was the task to which the Framers set themselves as they assembled in Philadelphia for The Constitutional Convention of 1787 (the book’s subtitle). Fortunately for American democracy, and for the future development of democracy around the globe, the Framers were a talented group of men who enjoyed great respect in their home states and throughout the country. As the Colliers put it, “It was as if today, to reach some important national decision, Americans were to bypass Congress and put together a conference of the wisest and most experienced people – college presidents, chairmen of large corporations, famous social scientists, distinguished public servants” (p. 104).
In this era when the U.S. Congress currently has a 29% approval rating -- and, to be fair, that is up from 17% earlier this year -- it is a method of national problem-solving that many Americans might approve of today.
The delegates faced three major issues, each of which threatened at various times to derail the entire Convention and send its members home from Philadelphia with nothing to show for their efforts. The first was the divide between large states and small states; the former wanted a government where power was apportioned according to population, while the latter wanted to maintain their equality of power under the Articles. The second was the divide between the Northern and Southern states; in a grim look ahead to a terrible Civil War that would rend the nation 80 years later, the Deep South – meaning, in this context, the Carolinas and Georgia – were jealously protective of their “peculiar institution” of slavery, and intended to combat any Northern efforts to restrict it. And the third was the entire question of how power would be distributed among the legislative, executive, and judicial branches of the new government.
Working thematically rather than chronologically, the Colliers set forth in an interesting and orderly manner the ways in which the Founders worked to resolve these issues. I found most interesting those passages of Decision in Philadelphia in which the authors expressed their opinions regarding might-have-beens, roads not taken, from that summer of 1787.
With regard to slavery, for example, the Colliers look at the weak situation of the three Deep South states – ravaged by Great Britain during the Revolutionary War, faced by hostile Spaniards and Native Americans on their frontiers, fearful of uprisings by enslaved African Americans – and conclude that “the northern delegates could have forced into the Constitution stricter limits on slavery” (p. 238), including a quicker end to the slave trade and a ban on slavery in any new states. “These two measures alone,” the authors write, “would have had the effect of confining slavery to the Southeast, and would perhaps have prevented the Civil War” (p. 239). Their assessment may be over-optimistic – Southern slaveholders displayed, early on, a determination to defend slavery by any means they might find necessary – but it is a thought-provoking suggestion nonetheless.
Something that might be of particular interest to modern readers relates to the Electoral College, a feature of American constitutional democracy that has been much in the news of late. The Colliers refer to the electoral college as “a Rube Goldberg machine. It was jerry-rigged out of odds and ends of parliamentary junk pressed together by contending interests” (p. 303). Later in the book, the authors express forthrightly their belief “that the institution of the electoral college ought to be discarded” (p. 360).
Writing back in 1986, at a time when Ronald Reagan had won the last two presidential elections by landslide popular and electoral-college majorities, the Colliers nonetheless looked ahead perceptively when they wrote that “A shift of one percent in the voting in a few pivotal states…is all it would take to produce a minority president. It has happened, and it is certain to happen again. It might be worth trying to find another way of doing things before we get into difficulties” (p. 361).
Prescient indeed, as two of the last seven presidential elections have seen the popular-vote loser win the presidency. In 2016, Donald Trump became president despite losing the popular vote by almost three million – or, to put it another way, three-quarters of the entire population of the United States of America at the time of the Constitution’s writing and ratification. What’s wrong with this picture? Much, I think.
There are ways in which the Colliers feel that modern American constitutional democracy has departed from the vision of the Founders. The Colliers speculate, for example, that the Framers “would almost certainly have been astonished and outraged” at “the tendency of recent American presidents to commit troops to battle without formal permission from Congress” (p. 331). Overall, though, the Colliers paint a highly favorable picture of the Framers as thoughtful men who wrote a Constitution that “worked because the men who wrote it had got human nature right. They believed that human beings had much good in them, but they also were sure that it was the bad that you had to watch out for” (p. 354).
I re-read Decision in Philadelphia on a trip to Philadelphia – a city where the history of the Thirteen Colonies and the early United States of America is all around one. Walking the streets that the Framers walked, I reflected on the grandeur of their achievements. We live in an era when many commentators are expressing concern about the future of American democracy – a concern that has also been expressed in other eras. Can the system of checks and balances, the system so carefully established by the Framers, hold against a president with an authoritarian approach to leadership and an evident impatience with the “disorder” of democracy? I choose to believe, and to hope, that --in this time, as in other times before our own -- the constitutional center will somehow manage to hold.
December 22, 2022
A young nation shook off the colonial chains of its European mother country, but in doing so it created financial and political upheaval internally as well as looking weak on the world stage so 55 men from across the nation gathered in a last-ditch attempt to save their nation. Decision in Philadelphia: The Constitutional Convention of 1787 by Christopher Collier and James Lincoln Collier is a history of the meeting in a hot Philadelphia summer of the men who completed the American Revolution.
The Colliers telling of the Constitutional Convention began with how the meeting came about and the major figures that has helped bring it out and would attend. The Colliers followed the proceedings of the Convention through topic and not day-to-day retelling, thus allowing them to show how the Constitution was created through the various conflicts between the delegates first between “big” and “small” states (based on population) and then the section conflict between North and South especially in connecting slavery and economic issues. Throughout the book the authors reminded their readers to remember the men at the Convention were not looking at things from a 20th Century perspective—the book was published in advance of the 200th Anniversary of the Convention—but from the events of their lives in the latter half of the 18th Century as well as their prejudices, but also how in the Convention the participants changed their way of thinking of political philosophy. Yet the authors while praising the work the men of the Convention did were not above criticism of the final document that they elaborated on in the final chapter.
Decision in Philadelphia is a good look into how the Constitution of the United States was created, the brothers Collier together produced a well-written history of the document that founded the American government.
The Colliers telling of the Constitutional Convention began with how the meeting came about and the major figures that has helped bring it out and would attend. The Colliers followed the proceedings of the Convention through topic and not day-to-day retelling, thus allowing them to show how the Constitution was created through the various conflicts between the delegates first between “big” and “small” states (based on population) and then the section conflict between North and South especially in connecting slavery and economic issues. Throughout the book the authors reminded their readers to remember the men at the Convention were not looking at things from a 20th Century perspective—the book was published in advance of the 200th Anniversary of the Convention—but from the events of their lives in the latter half of the 18th Century as well as their prejudices, but also how in the Convention the participants changed their way of thinking of political philosophy. Yet the authors while praising the work the men of the Convention did were not above criticism of the final document that they elaborated on in the final chapter.
Decision in Philadelphia is a good look into how the Constitution of the United States was created, the brothers Collier together produced a well-written history of the document that founded the American government.
August 8, 2021
Half of this book is quite good, but the other half—in my opinion—is very bad and undermines the interest all Americans should have in our founding principles and the men who promoted them.
Christopher Collier has written a clear, competent work on the confusing, stressful time surrounding the Constitutional Convention. His greatest contribution is the personal study he puts into explaining these 55 men, their times, and their own experiences. Collier argues that the Constitution was not shaped merely by geography or philosophy but by personality. His brief biographies of Sherman, Livingstone, Wilson, and many other lesser-known founders show depth of understanding and devotion to important details.
But why the low rating? Though this was a difficult book to review as a non-historian, there were two main reasons: discrepancies in historical EXPLANATION and in historical APPLICATION.
Like many historians he downplayed the founders’ Christian faith and current religious thought. E.g. taking note of how many times Washington skipped church but skipping over the open calls for prayer, Sunday worship, and references to God’s law/order.
He uses Hamilton’s preference for the British model to label him a lover of monarchy without any reference to his writings in the Federalist Papers.
He describes Sherman as a Calvinist, yet right away says he wasn’t “dogmatic”. I don’t know about Collier, but just as I’ve never seen a round-square, I’ve never met a non-dogmatic Calvinist.
Most important; I found that when he applied the founders’ philosophy to contemporary Constitutional “expansive interpretation”, it ultimately undermined his argument that these were great men who wrote an immensely successful, good legal document. He didn’t expressly say that the Constitution is systemically racist but came pretty close. He downplayed the North’s general abhorrence of Slavery to mere economics. His references to racial tension (of his lifetime) and poverty have little-to-nothing to do with the Constitution since it never claimed to be able to fix humanity.
He used the administrative state as a positive example for the need to interpret the Constitution broadly. These were the same bureaucratic entities with unchecked/unbalanced political power not granted by the Constitution, ran by unelected politicians who exercised power directly on the people without their consent, and enacted by men like Woodrow Wilson and FDR who openly disdained the founders’ political ideas.
Even Alexander Hamilton would be embarrassed to discover all this centralized, government power in America today. Unfortunately, these populist examples tend to appeal to those who have no interest in understanding the Constitutional Convention but in reimagining it. I understood Collier had his reasons for coming to these conclusions, but I personally prefer to side with other historians.
Christopher Collier has written a clear, competent work on the confusing, stressful time surrounding the Constitutional Convention. His greatest contribution is the personal study he puts into explaining these 55 men, their times, and their own experiences. Collier argues that the Constitution was not shaped merely by geography or philosophy but by personality. His brief biographies of Sherman, Livingstone, Wilson, and many other lesser-known founders show depth of understanding and devotion to important details.
But why the low rating? Though this was a difficult book to review as a non-historian, there were two main reasons: discrepancies in historical EXPLANATION and in historical APPLICATION.
Like many historians he downplayed the founders’ Christian faith and current religious thought. E.g. taking note of how many times Washington skipped church but skipping over the open calls for prayer, Sunday worship, and references to God’s law/order.
He uses Hamilton’s preference for the British model to label him a lover of monarchy without any reference to his writings in the Federalist Papers.
He describes Sherman as a Calvinist, yet right away says he wasn’t “dogmatic”. I don’t know about Collier, but just as I’ve never seen a round-square, I’ve never met a non-dogmatic Calvinist.
Most important; I found that when he applied the founders’ philosophy to contemporary Constitutional “expansive interpretation”, it ultimately undermined his argument that these were great men who wrote an immensely successful, good legal document. He didn’t expressly say that the Constitution is systemically racist but came pretty close. He downplayed the North’s general abhorrence of Slavery to mere economics. His references to racial tension (of his lifetime) and poverty have little-to-nothing to do with the Constitution since it never claimed to be able to fix humanity.
He used the administrative state as a positive example for the need to interpret the Constitution broadly. These were the same bureaucratic entities with unchecked/unbalanced political power not granted by the Constitution, ran by unelected politicians who exercised power directly on the people without their consent, and enacted by men like Woodrow Wilson and FDR who openly disdained the founders’ political ideas.
Even Alexander Hamilton would be embarrassed to discover all this centralized, government power in America today. Unfortunately, these populist examples tend to appeal to those who have no interest in understanding the Constitutional Convention but in reimagining it. I understood Collier had his reasons for coming to these conclusions, but I personally prefer to side with other historians.
October 2, 2021
Audible.com 13 hours and 3 min. Narrated by Bronson Pinchot (A)
A great look at what went on during the not summer months inside Independence Hall while the 55 representatives from the 13 states did their best to come up with a constitution that would not only be the rules for governing the new country of America but also be acceptable by their states. There was so much give and take, so many compromises, a few important issues not dealt with at all. This a book about the personalities of the men who first had to govern themselves before anything could be accomplisehed. John Madison may or may not have been the Father of the Constitution, but he kept the only written record of what happened each day (or so we were told.) Later another record was found. This is a great book, sometimes repetitious but always interesting. Highly recommend.
A great look at what went on during the not summer months inside Independence Hall while the 55 representatives from the 13 states did their best to come up with a constitution that would not only be the rules for governing the new country of America but also be acceptable by their states. There was so much give and take, so many compromises, a few important issues not dealt with at all. This a book about the personalities of the men who first had to govern themselves before anything could be accomplisehed. John Madison may or may not have been the Father of the Constitution, but he kept the only written record of what happened each day (or so we were told.) Later another record was found. This is a great book, sometimes repetitious but always interesting. Highly recommend.
August 30, 2023
This book helps me understand how the Framers discussed and compromised and discussed again how to give a government power, but not too much power. The men at the Constitutional Convention wrestled with issues of states' rights, slavery, proportional representation, and the level of executive power, among other things.
The authors untangle discussions by topic and allow us to see how the path of arguments wind and tangle until agreement was reached. The framers wanted the legislature to hold the preponderance of power and the Supreme Court was not to be involved in daily decisions of the people.
While discussion the creation of a standing army, these ideas were written: "Making enforcement difficult was the fact that American citizens were armed to an extent that would have astonished Europeans, both nobles and peasants...The American citizenry, potentially, constituted an army of its own..." I learned the the National Guard, administered by each state, is the descendent of the early states' militias.
The authors point out that the stain of compromising about slavery has festered throughout our society since the beginning.
"Finally, we believe, as we have said earlier, that the institution of the electoral college ought to be discarded."
The authors write respectfully of the men at the Constitutional Convention and of the Constitution they produced. I understand our Constitution better because of reading this.
The authors untangle discussions by topic and allow us to see how the path of arguments wind and tangle until agreement was reached. The framers wanted the legislature to hold the preponderance of power and the Supreme Court was not to be involved in daily decisions of the people.
While discussion the creation of a standing army, these ideas were written: "Making enforcement difficult was the fact that American citizens were armed to an extent that would have astonished Europeans, both nobles and peasants...The American citizenry, potentially, constituted an army of its own..." I learned the the National Guard, administered by each state, is the descendent of the early states' militias.
The authors point out that the stain of compromising about slavery has festered throughout our society since the beginning.
"Finally, we believe, as we have said earlier, that the institution of the electoral college ought to be discarded."
The authors write respectfully of the men at the Constitutional Convention and of the Constitution they produced. I understand our Constitution better because of reading this.
November 29, 2019
This was required reading for me when I was in college, and I remembered that I really enjoyed it then (which was saying something). Many years later when I started teaching history, I started reading a lot of nonfiction again, and decided to reread this. (I remembered liking it, but didn't remember very much about the specifics.) I really enjoyed it the second time around as well. There were a couple of places that I found it somewhat less interesting, but overall, it put me in awe of what the Founding Fathers were able to accomplish. It was also fun to see what I found important now as a US History teacher vs what my 20 year old self highlighted.
September 29, 2021
I DID IT
January 18, 2021
A masterful dissection of the Constitutional Convention and the personalities, issues, and competitions that drove it. While the American constitution has long been heralded as a champion of human rights and aspirations, it is not perfect. There are some obvious questions that result from the end product, including why the slavery issue was not resolved and how separation of powers was intended to function vs. how it actually functions.
We know well many of the principals, of course, but this work helps us to know those we don't know so well and to understand the intense and complicated debates over every detail of the new government. It was a trying and sometimes contentious affair and only the character and commitment of these fifty-five men enabled a largely successful outcome. It isn't perfect and there are issues they knew were left unresolved, but the other option - letting the new nation fail - was not an option. And from that we are left with compromises, sometimes vagueness, and wiggle room.
Slavery and human rights is the biggest failure, of course. Seen from our perspective it is the obvious "How could they?" Seen from their perspective, however, from their point in time, it was a contentious and unsolvable puzzle. The compromise was to punt and thus allow the nation time to grow and mature in hopes that an acceptable solution would emerge. It didn't, and two generations later we were at war with ourselves. The immediate option was to watch the nation dissolve and that was not something any of these revolutionaries could stomach.
Slavery wasn't the only issue that divided the convention. State's rights vs. a strong national government, what kind of legislature and how elected, and what about the executive? How was it to be elected? All of these things that we take for granted today were part of the grand experiment in its early stage. For those in the room there was nothing to be taken for granted, save the name of the first president. Everything else was on the table.
We have the benefit of hindsight and there are easy villains to note. But we should also remember that for their time, their place, and their position the accomplishment of the Constitutional Convention was and is a remarkable achievement. We are in a period of history that is again contentious, pitting citizen against citizen. Emotions and agendas are driving us further apart, our energy is spent in dividing ourselves, "Cancel culture" is on a rampage. We would do well to look back on this gathering of patriots and honor their commitment and hard, even agonizing work. Instead of tossing them and what they created into the trash bin, we would do better to roll up our sleeves and work alongside them. They formed a new nation. It isn't perfect but it is what we have. It is our duty to partner with them in making it better, not to destroy what they labored so hard to give us.
We know well many of the principals, of course, but this work helps us to know those we don't know so well and to understand the intense and complicated debates over every detail of the new government. It was a trying and sometimes contentious affair and only the character and commitment of these fifty-five men enabled a largely successful outcome. It isn't perfect and there are issues they knew were left unresolved, but the other option - letting the new nation fail - was not an option. And from that we are left with compromises, sometimes vagueness, and wiggle room.
Slavery and human rights is the biggest failure, of course. Seen from our perspective it is the obvious "How could they?" Seen from their perspective, however, from their point in time, it was a contentious and unsolvable puzzle. The compromise was to punt and thus allow the nation time to grow and mature in hopes that an acceptable solution would emerge. It didn't, and two generations later we were at war with ourselves. The immediate option was to watch the nation dissolve and that was not something any of these revolutionaries could stomach.
Slavery wasn't the only issue that divided the convention. State's rights vs. a strong national government, what kind of legislature and how elected, and what about the executive? How was it to be elected? All of these things that we take for granted today were part of the grand experiment in its early stage. For those in the room there was nothing to be taken for granted, save the name of the first president. Everything else was on the table.
We have the benefit of hindsight and there are easy villains to note. But we should also remember that for their time, their place, and their position the accomplishment of the Constitutional Convention was and is a remarkable achievement. We are in a period of history that is again contentious, pitting citizen against citizen. Emotions and agendas are driving us further apart, our energy is spent in dividing ourselves, "Cancel culture" is on a rampage. We would do well to look back on this gathering of patriots and honor their commitment and hard, even agonizing work. Instead of tossing them and what they created into the trash bin, we would do better to roll up our sleeves and work alongside them. They formed a new nation. It isn't perfect but it is what we have. It is our duty to partner with them in making it better, not to destroy what they labored so hard to give us.
March 18, 2025
I love this book because it does a fantastic job of explaining the absolute mess of the political situation at the time and how much human flaws and emotions factored into the making of this document. The authors do discuss how much the Founders failed the country by not doing more about slavery, but I would have wanted it to be more of a focus. If you don't know a lot about the period, I would read this book along with something that looks at the era through more of a race-based lens.
It's interesting how they detail all of the possible failings of the Constitution that we've avoided thus far, because we've seen pretty much all of those in the last few years. I wonder if the Colliers have different thoughts about the Constitution after all the ways the political process has fallen apart lately.
It's interesting how they detail all of the possible failings of the Constitution that we've avoided thus far, because we've seen pretty much all of those in the last few years. I wonder if the Colliers have different thoughts about the Constitution after all the ways the political process has fallen apart lately.
July 28, 2009
In today's political times, our freedoms are slowly being eroded. It's good to know a little constitutional history and how America got our Constitution. The main points: preserve individual history and balance of powers so no one branch exerts too much authority. The current President is by-passing this in unique ways such as the appointment of over 20 czars.
April 14, 2013
A riveting book , cannot recommend it enough to any history buff, especially the ones who seem to know exactly what the founding fathers would have wanted.
February 18, 2021
An entertaining look into some lesser known Constitutional Convention attendees.
"Decision in Philadelphia" hits all the necessary beats in recounting the Constitutional Convention but where the book excels is highlighting three of the generally lesser own participants: Charles Pinckney, Robert Sherman, and James Wilson.
Pinckney claimed credit for being the youngest delegate (claiming 24 when he was actually 29) but his real contribution was being the first to submit the his own plan for a new gov't at the same time as Madison submitted his Virginia Plan. The text and structure of Pinckney's plan bears a striking resemblance to the final document and the fact that Madison (who also submitted his own plan and kept the notes of the convention didn't mention it is... curious). Pinckney would long claim his plan was the basis for the final document and while it kind of doesn't matter now, it's a very interesting side drama in the overall convention story.
Also getting the spotlight is Connecticut's Roger Sherman, who is the only person to have signed all 4 founding documents: the Continental Association, the Declaration of Independence, the Articles of Confederation, and the Constitution. The second oldest delegate after Franklin, he comes across as a rock of stability and thoughtfulness and eventually proposed the Great Compromise that made the House representation apportioned by population while the Senate was equal by state, thereby giving both large and small states an avenue to support the new Constitution.
Finally, James Wilson gets a nod. Collier rightly notes that America's founding was really one of lawyers so much of the arguments were based on legal principles. And Wilson was one of the preeminent legal minds of the day. His position on the Committee of Detail is explored and shows how important his work was as it is what generated the first working draft of the Constitution -- putting meat on the bones as it were.
While the bulk of the book covers the high points of the Convention (big vs small states, sectionalism, and how the delegates dealt with slavery) and does it well, the real highlight is in the attention paid to those delegates that don't often get pride of position in most histories. A welcome addition.
"Decision in Philadelphia" hits all the necessary beats in recounting the Constitutional Convention but where the book excels is highlighting three of the generally lesser own participants: Charles Pinckney, Robert Sherman, and James Wilson.
Pinckney claimed credit for being the youngest delegate (claiming 24 when he was actually 29) but his real contribution was being the first to submit the his own plan for a new gov't at the same time as Madison submitted his Virginia Plan. The text and structure of Pinckney's plan bears a striking resemblance to the final document and the fact that Madison (who also submitted his own plan and kept the notes of the convention didn't mention it is... curious). Pinckney would long claim his plan was the basis for the final document and while it kind of doesn't matter now, it's a very interesting side drama in the overall convention story.
Also getting the spotlight is Connecticut's Roger Sherman, who is the only person to have signed all 4 founding documents: the Continental Association, the Declaration of Independence, the Articles of Confederation, and the Constitution. The second oldest delegate after Franklin, he comes across as a rock of stability and thoughtfulness and eventually proposed the Great Compromise that made the House representation apportioned by population while the Senate was equal by state, thereby giving both large and small states an avenue to support the new Constitution.
Finally, James Wilson gets a nod. Collier rightly notes that America's founding was really one of lawyers so much of the arguments were based on legal principles. And Wilson was one of the preeminent legal minds of the day. His position on the Committee of Detail is explored and shows how important his work was as it is what generated the first working draft of the Constitution -- putting meat on the bones as it were.
While the bulk of the book covers the high points of the Convention (big vs small states, sectionalism, and how the delegates dealt with slavery) and does it well, the real highlight is in the attention paid to those delegates that don't often get pride of position in most histories. A welcome addition.
October 23, 2022
A most awesome book, about the astounding and incredible intellectual drama of the creation of The Constitution.
It is a singular wonder that the convention members were able to achieve a constitution as great as was achieved, flaws and oversights and unfortunate compromises included.
The separation of powers (along with a larger set of checks and balances) that the convention was able to achieve, is so astonishingly invaluable.
The Constitution is the most important achievement humanity has yet miraculously invented.
It is impossible to anticipate every conceivable or eventual problem in any complex system.
That considered, a remarkable achievement was made in this most important of human inventions.
The collective genius of this convention of humans is unprecedented.
As for the presidency, it became well understood that in a popular vote election the big States would swamp small states, so the elector system (the electoral college, which is a favorite whipping boy today) was the best possible compromise that could be come up with, and is still a good compromise for states rights.
It's a bit of a Rube Goldberg machine of a system, but it works surprisingly well.
Most democracies that have been tried besides ours (with our amazing separation of powers and amazing checks and balances) have led to a dictator with control of the army that can subdue the citizenry and the vote. But not in our system, that can't work anymore. All of our standing armies and police forces have family members living in and among all the regular citizenry and there is no way they're going to put their families at risk by all the citizen gun owners in our country by taking orders from and usurper dictator wannabe. And our standing armies and police forces are of no single political or ideological unity.
Coercion by and usurper or coupe is therefore not even remotely possible in a vast and diverse Nation such as we have been blessed with.
Understanding and appreciating the tremendous genius that was brought to bear on the creation of this document is of tremendous power in comprehending our current place in existence!
It is a singular wonder that the convention members were able to achieve a constitution as great as was achieved, flaws and oversights and unfortunate compromises included.
The separation of powers (along with a larger set of checks and balances) that the convention was able to achieve, is so astonishingly invaluable.
The Constitution is the most important achievement humanity has yet miraculously invented.
It is impossible to anticipate every conceivable or eventual problem in any complex system.
That considered, a remarkable achievement was made in this most important of human inventions.
The collective genius of this convention of humans is unprecedented.
As for the presidency, it became well understood that in a popular vote election the big States would swamp small states, so the elector system (the electoral college, which is a favorite whipping boy today) was the best possible compromise that could be come up with, and is still a good compromise for states rights.
It's a bit of a Rube Goldberg machine of a system, but it works surprisingly well.
Most democracies that have been tried besides ours (with our amazing separation of powers and amazing checks and balances) have led to a dictator with control of the army that can subdue the citizenry and the vote. But not in our system, that can't work anymore. All of our standing armies and police forces have family members living in and among all the regular citizenry and there is no way they're going to put their families at risk by all the citizen gun owners in our country by taking orders from and usurper dictator wannabe. And our standing armies and police forces are of no single political or ideological unity.
Coercion by and usurper or coupe is therefore not even remotely possible in a vast and diverse Nation such as we have been blessed with.
Understanding and appreciating the tremendous genius that was brought to bear on the creation of this document is of tremendous power in comprehending our current place in existence!
November 10, 2023
A fantastic book with which to start understanding the U.S. Constitution. Supposedly this book falls into the category of popular history. I'm not exactly sure why. It's a bit light on the footnotes but it has a reasonably extensive bibliography at fourteen pages. A nice and unique feature of the book is that the authors make a point of giving bibliographical sketches of some of the key actors. Eleven of the twenty-five chapters have the names of some founding fathers in them. The Colliers make it abundantly clear that the attendees struggled trying to avoid the overly weak government provided by the Articles of Confederation and their fear of an overly powerful and overbearing executive. They choose to avoid a weak executive and thus, at least in my opinion, gave the executive too much power. Regardless of what one's opinion is, if you follow the text you know that an executive, in the guise of the British monarch, provoked a bloody revolution whereas a weak executive under the Articles of Confederation brought forth a constitutional convention. It seems to me that a reading of this book should lead to the conclusion that the Constitution give moderately more power to the executive than the Article of Confederation did and if this strengthened executive is still too weak, then call for another constitutional convention a few years down the line and give the government even more power. It's a possibility that should have at least been considered--again based on the very text of this book.
March 25, 2023
Loaded with details which makes it great for research. However the author's bios on those who attended the convention focused on the negatives while misunderstanding the nature of the 18th century and the individuals themselves.
For example the author stated that George Washington was quick tempered, while others describe Washington as stouc.
Elsewhere the author fussed about George Mason's temperament, in part evidenced by rare appearances in the legislative body he was to attend. Actually that is because Mason suffered from a physical ailment that caused excessive pain not conducive to long and slow travel on 18th century roads. (btw Lafayette complained of the terrible roads in America.)
The author states that James Madison was born i. Orange County in central Virginia, when in fact he was born in Port Conway in far eastern Virginia.
Delegate William Samuel Johnso. Was described as one who held his body erect. Well everyone had quite erect posture in the 18th century because of the clothing. Tots wore stays to learn good posture. Ladies wore stays. Even ladies' gowns and men's frock coats were constructed for shoylders that were pulled back. Ever notice the straight back chairs in museums? As o e who has worn historically accurate gows and stays, straight back chairs are suddenly more comfortable when I'm in 18th century attire, rather than modern furniture.
For example the author stated that George Washington was quick tempered, while others describe Washington as stouc.
Elsewhere the author fussed about George Mason's temperament, in part evidenced by rare appearances in the legislative body he was to attend. Actually that is because Mason suffered from a physical ailment that caused excessive pain not conducive to long and slow travel on 18th century roads. (btw Lafayette complained of the terrible roads in America.)
The author states that James Madison was born i. Orange County in central Virginia, when in fact he was born in Port Conway in far eastern Virginia.
Delegate William Samuel Johnso. Was described as one who held his body erect. Well everyone had quite erect posture in the 18th century because of the clothing. Tots wore stays to learn good posture. Ladies wore stays. Even ladies' gowns and men's frock coats were constructed for shoylders that were pulled back. Ever notice the straight back chairs in museums? As o e who has worn historically accurate gows and stays, straight back chairs are suddenly more comfortable when I'm in 18th century attire, rather than modern furniture.
January 2, 2022
a fascinating look at the way the Constitution emerged out of hard work, disagreements and compromises of some really brilliant people. I particularly appreciated the description of the personalities and experiences of the Founders and how that influenced the work.
I wish some of the folks who talk about the Constitution as if it had been directly dictated by God would read the book. Frankly, I have a deeper appreciation of it by seeing the very human work that went into it. In the end, I appreciated the acknoweldgement of Founders being unable/unwilling to break through the evil of slavery. What a different nation we could have been! God help us!
I couldn't agree more that the Electoral College was their big mistake. We've seen the authors' warning of a President coming into office without a majority of the voters since their book was written. Now, we're been set up for the possibility of even worse in the years ahead. In the end, though, I came away with deeper respect for and confidence in the Constitution and still have hope for our future.
I wish some of the folks who talk about the Constitution as if it had been directly dictated by God would read the book. Frankly, I have a deeper appreciation of it by seeing the very human work that went into it. In the end, I appreciated the acknoweldgement of Founders being unable/unwilling to break through the evil of slavery. What a different nation we could have been! God help us!
I couldn't agree more that the Electoral College was their big mistake. We've seen the authors' warning of a President coming into office without a majority of the voters since their book was written. Now, we're been set up for the possibility of even worse in the years ahead. In the end, though, I came away with deeper respect for and confidence in the Constitution and still have hope for our future.
July 7, 2022
"Decision in Philadelphia" is timely reading today with an active Supreme Court providing us with new interpretations of the words set forth in Philadelphia in 1787. This is a history told in terms of the people who made the history. Reading about the persons who came together to produce our Constitution, in terms of their own pressures and preferences, brings the Constitution to life in ways a traditional simple telling of the facts could never do. It is sad to think that this kind of gathering seems out of the question in today's polarized political world where the good of the country seems to have been replaced by today's focus on how to win the next election. Every American should read this book!
November 1, 2025
One rarely reads about the fine details of what happened in that state house in Philadelphia. This book provides great insight into the process.
One feature of the process was its nonlinearity. The participants circled around certain issues and decided, un-decided, and re-decided some issues. Madison and Washington make their appearances, but so also do less famous names like Roger Sherman, Abraham Baldwin, James Wilson, Luther Martin, George Mason, Elbridge Gerry, and many others. The compromises and triangulations are laid out in some detail, showing the specific roles of many of these actors in shaping the document.
One feature of the process was its nonlinearity. The participants circled around certain issues and decided, un-decided, and re-decided some issues. Madison and Washington make their appearances, but so also do less famous names like Roger Sherman, Abraham Baldwin, James Wilson, Luther Martin, George Mason, Elbridge Gerry, and many others. The compromises and triangulations are laid out in some detail, showing the specific roles of many of these actors in shaping the document.
March 21, 2019
I had know about the Collier brothers for a long time, not for their nonfiction (I didn't even know they wrote it) but for their fiction. I always enjoyed their books. This piece of nonfiction was well written and explored the creation of the US Constitution. It seemed like the book was well supported with research, but because I listened to it, I wasn't able to verify this. I enjoyed this book very much and felt that I gained a lot of knowledge.
May 28, 2019
A thoroughly readable and engaging history of the Constitutional Convention of 1787. I liked the authors’ approach of providing short bios of the main characters in the first chapters and then dealing with the convention according to three themes (big/small states, north/south states, power). This is not a blow by blow of every argument made during the convention, but an overview of the issues that drove it. Even this former U.S. History teacher learned a ton from this book.
August 29, 2024
Read / listened to this as a six year old. One of the first books I ever read and the beginning of both my political and historical interests. The easy to understand explanations and the interlocking nature of how history was depicted gave me a passion and interest for history that has and continues to define my life. I don’t remember anything from this book in itself perhaps, but the lessons it subconsciously taught me has made me who I am today. And for that I am grateful
November 20, 2018
Learn about the men behind the Constitution. Full of entertaining anecdotes; character studies of lesser known Founding Fathers who had just as profound of an impact on the Convention as the famous ones; and sass, so much sass. This book does a good job to put the Constitution into historical context and help understand what Original Intent really entails.
June 26, 2021
This book is an in-depth review of the people and the decisions of the Constitutional Convention of 1787. It is a mini civics course that we should all take. What were the arguments, discussions, and decisions that lead to the Constitution and the government we have today. The delegates are not treated as perfect, but rather imperfect men who did a near-perfect job.
November 30, 2023
I found this useful. It wasn’t until the end when they were analyzing the constitution and were talking about how Electoral College could mean that someone could lose the popular vote win the election that I discovered it was written in 1987. I probably would have found something more recent had I known. Amazon says it came out in 2007. This publication maybe.
October 18, 2024
Listened to the audibook, and while the age of the book shows (a bit stuffy and completely silent on women), the details on the negotiations of the Constitution drafting are fascinating. The book covers major sticking points among the drafters: slavery, big v small states, the strength of the national government, while also diving into more detail about key people from the convention.
June 17, 2025
A pretty fair and detailed look at the process of crafting the Constitution. I appreciated the character sketches that were sprinkled throughout and the topical layout the Colliers took. They help set the Constitution in its time and give a better understanding of how it was ultimately a compromise document coming out of various competing interests.
May 11, 2017
Excellent piece of work!
Well worth the time and effort!
Especially fascinating were the brief bios of the delegates. Also liked the author's approach of tracing an issue all the way from the beginning to the end, then rewinding to the beginning for the next issue.
Well worth the time and effort!
Especially fascinating were the brief bios of the delegates. Also liked the author's approach of tracing an issue all the way from the beginning to the end, then rewinding to the beginning for the next issue.
January 10, 2018
An easy flowing description of the convention and the characteristics of the delegates who produced the Constitution. Some very nice discussions of many of the issues, although some issues did not get a full treatment. Overall, an informative and enjoyable book.
December 21, 2020
A well-written history of the young republic during its formative years and a series of interesting abridged biographies on the founding fathers at the eponymous convention. Reading it makes me proud to be an American.
March 25, 2025
This book read like a clear 5 stars until the last chapter when the author's capped the work with an essay on the Constitution in light of their personal worldview and opinion. The rest of the book, however, was excellent.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 79 reviews