The Great Rehearsal

by Carl van Doren

s/t: The Story of the Making & Ratifying of the Constitution of the United States
Preface
Commander & Philosopher
Preliminary Planning
Revision or Creation
The Legislature & the People
The Virginia Plan
Small & Large States
The Federal Compromise
Plans for the United States
A Rising Sun
The War of Words & Ideas
Nine Necessary States
The Remaining States
The Federal Procession
Appendices
Sources & Acknowledgments
Index

Genres: History, American History, Politics

Hardcover

First published January 1, 1948

About the author

Carl Clinton van Doren, a United States critic and biographer, won Pulitzer Prize. He was the brother of Mark van Doren and the uncle of Charles van Doren.

Reviews

[Jamie Smith · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is another book that sat on my shelves for a long time, because I had a hard time imagining that I was going to enjoy reading about parliamentary procedures, motions, speeches, proposals, and draft after draft of proposed constitutional articles. I’m glad I finally got around to it, because I thoroughly enjoyed it, and learned a lot about the process that led from thirteen independently sovereign states under the post-Revolution Articles of Confederation to the United States as we know it today.

Published in 1948, Carl Van Doren’s The Great Rehearsal is an account of the drafting of the U.S. Constitution in 1787, and its subsequent ratification by the states. It is a remarkable story of conflict and compromise, of working around the deal-breakers that many of the states would not budge on, such as the Southerners’ insistence on maintaining slavery, or the small states’ demands that they each have the same number of votes in the Senate as the larger states. Understanding the original rationale for the now much maligned Electoral College helps clarify the delegates’ thinking: voters in the rural areas of most states would have very little information or understanding of the Presidential candidates or their positions, so it made sense to have electors who would have a broader knowledge of the issues at stake.

(Fun fact: the Constitution contains the words “corruption of blood” and forbids it in Article III, Section 3, Clause 2. It is a reference to English law where those convicted of treason were prohibited from transferring property or leaving it to their heirs.)

When the delegates discussed the position of Chief Executive for the first time, the proposal was made that it should be a single person. This was a contentious idea for some, and alternatives were proposed, such as it being a council of three. Van Doren summed up their concerns, “And might not a single executive, once in office, somehow find it possible to seize power and make himself into a king, with that or some other name? If there was anything which these republicans in Independence Hall dreaded as much as anarchy in the states, it was a single tyrant ruling over them. The history of republics, they all knew, was full of instances of disorder ending in despotism.”

Eventually, of course, the Constitution did provide for the president to be a single person. The following year George Washington replied to a letter from Lafayette, who had expressed concern that a chief executive of this kind could be a danger to the country. Washington was not too much concerned about it, but he recognized the potential for trouble, and knew that under the right circumstances a bad president could bring about the collapse of the republic. His words seem to have a special significance for our troubled times, burdened as we are with a dysfunctional Congress and President.

“There cannot, in my judgment, be the least danger that the President will by any practicable intrigue ever be able to continue himself one moment in office, much less perpetuate himself in it; but in the last stage of corrupted morals and political depravity: and even then there is as much danger that any other species of domination would prevail. Though, when a people shall have become incapable of governing themselves and fit for a master, it is of little consequence from which quarter he comes.”

There is a lot in this book that is worth knowing.

[Joe Walton · Rating 4 out of 5]

Why would a book describing the construction of the Constitution of the United States be called a rehearsal? It didn't become clear to me until the end of the book when I realized that most of the issues of that time remain unsolved today. There was great concern that the new republic would be short lived. There is so much turmoil today that the issue has not been resolved. Without the Constitution, we have chaos, demonstrating the need for the rule of law.

It is impossible to capsulize this book because it overflows with facts, emotions, ideas and predictions. Each sentence could produce a paragraph, each paragraph a chapter and each chapter a book.

This book along with Ron Chernow's Hamilton should be required reading in every college and university in America. It should be taught in every high school. It is impossible to evaluate our political world today without understanding the origins of our republic. It is still a rehearsal.

[Neil Funsch · Rating 4 out of 5]

Very readable account which also includes the texts of the Articles of Confederation, Virginia Plan, the Constitution etc.

[Duncan · Rating 4 out of 5]

Vivid account of the Constitutional Convention, written accessibly, though the cost is a bit of oversimplification. I wished there had been more about the judiciary, for example, and the discussion of the executive notes that some had concerns about the president becoming a king but doesn't really elaborate on how Article II was crafted to address those concerns. But the description of how Congress was created is very good, particularly the small states' refusal to ratify without an equal vote in the Senate, and it's a discussion with some unfortunate resonances now, when even smaller (relatively) states effectively control the Senate. The account of the debate on ratification is particularly interesting because the Anti-Federalists appeared to have some legitimate objections that got lost in all the conspiracy-theorizing (much of it with racist overtones about the Jews, immigrants, etc.); George Mason, for example, objects to the continuation of the slave trade, even for a short period, and it's hard not to agree that the ratifiers should have taken a harder line.

[Georgia · Rating 5 out of 5]

If you think we have so many factions today in our good Ol' USA, You'd better read this book even though it was written in 1948. I don't know about you but I always felt that after the Revolution of 1776 many committed, smart men gathered together and formed this country peacefully. Alas! It took 12 years until our Constitution was ratified! This book is about the drafting and ratification; its supporters and enemies. ( Learn why). James Madison took copious notes and reconstructs the convention of 55 men sworn to silence! What interested me the most were the thoughts, ideas, debates by these learned, articulate men especially George Washington, the Outstanding Benjamin Franklin , Alexander Hamilton, the stories the author includes of what was happening about this group of men and lots of interesting factoids about America which are still prevalent today!🤓

[Ogden Jones · Rating 4 out of 5]

Written in 1948 around the time of the founding of the United Nations, this is a very good account of the creation of the U.S. Constitution.Very detailed. I thought it would be borint, but it wasn't. I learned so much. And it so weird to read in this time of Trump about some of the concerns that an unscrupulous president would try to become a tyrant. That was one of the major concerns. It took about 250 years, but some of those fears came partially true this year. But the institutions put in place by the constitution were strong enough to stand up. We are still stuck with Electoral College, though.

[Judith Singer · Rating 5 out of 5]

An illuminating account of the making and ratifying of the United States Constitution, based on the records kept of the proceedings and the journals of some of the participants. Anyone who wants to know about the intent of the Framers regarding religion or the right to bear arms should read this book.

[Monte Lamb · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book covers the Constitutional convention and the ratification process. It seems to cover the central issues necessary for compromise as well as relating the arguments made on each. It does so in a comfortable and detailed manner. I did feel the book was a little droll at times, but it does give a good story on what and how the Constitution was conceived, written, and approved.

[John Cates]

Understanding how we got here sheds some light on our current (as well as past) political situation