Novus Ordo Seclorum

by Forrest McDonald, Daniel Laurence (Narrator)

McDonald deftly re-creates the intellectual dimension of the amazing 55 men whose genius and passion gave us the United States Constitution. 7 cassettes.

Genres: History, American History, Politics, Law, Nonfiction, American Revolution, Philosophy

10 pages, Audio Cassette

First published November 1, 1985

About the author

Dr. McDonald was a Distinguished Research Professor of History at the University of Alabama, where he was the Sixteenth Jefferson Lecturer in the Humanities in 1987. He was awarded the Ingersoll Prize in 1990. Professor McDonald is the author of several books including Novus Ordo Seclorum (University Press of Kansas, 1985), and The American Presidency: Roots, Establishment, Evolution (University Press of Kansas, 1994).

Reviews

[Bryn D · Rating 3 out of 5]

Key word is intellectual. This book is not for the casual reader as I hoped. It was still very accessible but it was very deep in terms of tracing the philosophical, legal, economic, and politcal schools of thought that influenced the creation of the American Constitution. I liked how McDonald traces the philosophical inspiration of Aristotle, John Locke, David Hume, Montesquieu, Adam Smith and others, but got over my head in chapters regarding economics and English law that the Framers drew from.

It was interesting but a little too intellectual to be considered an enjoyable read. Casual readers or others with a basic background understanding of the founding should probably consider other quality books out there. I consider myself pretty well informed and self educated in terms of the philosophy of the founders but this was still a bear to get through.

[Mick Wright · Rating 2 out of 5]

I received this book as a gift and dropped in without knowing it was part three of a historical trilogy.

With Novus Ordo Seclorum: The Intellectual Origins of the Constitution, historian Forrest McDonald completes the series he began with We the People: The Economic Origins of the Constitution, and followed with E Pluribus Unum: The Formation of the American Republic, 1776-1790.

McDonald submitted the first in the series as a corrective response to another study of the Founders, which had inappropriately interpreted the Constitution as a document "serving the economic interests of the Framers as members of the propertied class."

In Novus Ordo Seclorum, or "new order of the ages," McDonald completes his original argument that the Founders didn't have a singular, shared, economic interest, while also responding to a consensus that had emerged among historians pinning the Constitution's foundation to neoclassical republican ideology.

This consensus McDonald finds "ultimately unsatisfying" for a similar reason, because "it fails to distinguish among the several kinds of republicanism that were espoused," reflecting regionally different social and economic norms.

While the Founders had many things in common - shared experiences, a shared reverence for republican governance, and knowledge of history and political theory - they often had different understandings of the terms, principles and preferred means.

And perhaps just as striking, the ideological reference points at their disposal were incompatible. Nothing in history or in theory had led them directly to the decisions they made in forming the Constitution, nor had they arrived at the outcome without serious deliberation, repeated compromises, and a leap of faith.

The result was a Constitution unlike any previously written, detailing a government assembled like none had ever been. There was no terminology even to describe its form, so the word "republic" was appropriated and redefined.

McDonald makes his case by offering "a reasonably comprehensive survey of the complex body of political thought (including history and law and political economy) that went into the framing of the Constitution."

The survey is not an easy read, and it could certainly benefit from some formatting enhancements (subheadings, numbered lists, etc.). There is no captivating narrative, nor any engaging drama, just a sober presentation of facts, littered with footnotes. That's the reason I give it a two-star rating, despite the importance of the subject, and the seriousness and reverence with which it is examined.

The serious reader will learn much about the context that shaped the Founders' opinions, what ideas were at the ready, what kind of legal environment had been their custom, and what they had meant by key terms such as liberty, property, and equality.

McDonald also catalogs what was then understood about the relatively new economic field of study, and he identifies the camps that formed around various points during the Constitutional Convention.

What I appreciate most from Novus Ordo Seclorum is the impression of the Constitution as a delicate collage, the product of a diverse array of thinkers, compromises and considerations. The whole is stronger than the parts, and if any of them had been more or less dominant, the entire project could have fallen apart quickly, or never completed in the first place.

[Andrew · Rating 5 out of 5]

Great read!

We all would do well to remember that the Constitution's one and only job is to limit the Federal government, not grant us freedoms.

[Kenneth · Rating 5 out of 5]

Eye opening! Brought a new light to the founding and the constitution by placing those events into the context of hundreds of years of European/English intellectual development. Launched this reader onto a decades-long search for intellectual connections that had their roots in ancient times and developed through the rise of Christianity, the Renaissance and the Enlightenment. Worth several re-readings.

[Tanweer · Rating 4 out of 5]

Though dense in some places and one or two topics were slow, overall, it was an excellent read on the what philosophies and theories fed into the Founders thoughts and action. He did kind of under cut his entire book with the last chapter, but still, it is worth the read.

[John · Rating 4 out of 5]

Not a conspiracy theory book, despite the title. Forest MacDonald is a conservative, but large portions of this book are straightforward intellectual history and valuable.

[Steven H · Rating 5 out of 5]

THE EMINENT HISTORIAN LOOKS AT THE CONSTITUTION

Forrest McDonald (born 1927) is an American historian, who has also written books such as 'We the People: The Economic Origins of the Constitution,' and 'E Pluribus Unum: The Formation of the American Republic 1776-1790.' This book was originally published in 1965, and revised in 1992.

He notes early on that "Most Americans... seem to have been indifferent with regard to slavery... (or) the apparent contradiction between the Declaration (of Independence) and the existence of slavery..." (Pg. 51) McDonald suggests, "In an age in which the great mass of mankind almost everywhere groaned under unspeakable wretchedness, it was difficult for Americans to be much concerned about the lot of their slaves." (Pg. 53)

He observes that the term "the people" was "narrowly defined... (and) did not mean everyone in the community, 'old and young, male and female, as well as rich and poor'... Women were excluded... Children, servants, and the propertyless were excluded... only about one American in six was eligible to participate in the political process, and far fewer were eligible to hold public office." (Pg. 161-162)

He argues that "it is meaningless to say that the Framers intended this or that the Framers intended that: their positions were diverse and, in many particulars, incompatible." (Pg. 224) He also notes that "The delegates devoted less time to forming the judiciary... than they had expended on the legislative and executive branches." (Pg. 253) But he suggests that this "was less a matter of careless workmanship than of shirking responsibility." (Pg. 256)

All of McDonald's works on this era are of great interest to students of early American history.

[Celoknob · Rating 2 out of 5]

I thought this book would be right up my alley. I’m interested in political philosophy, history, intellectual history, and the US constitution. However, I struggled to ever get engrossed in this work.

Maybe the analysis was just more complex in places than I hoped, but McDonald’s writing style did not agree with me. For one, he tends to write overly long sentences. He is also highly opinionated in ways I found unsubstantiated or arrogant. For example, he stated it was fortunate that neither John Adams nor Thomas Jefferson was involved in constitution-making without really explaining why this is a fact. Considering Adams was one of the most noted authors of writing about constitutions and Jefferson one of the most articulate writers in American history including this statement requires more analysis and support than the author provided. There are many other examples where he states controversial opinions as facts with very limited or no explanations.

There are many good well-sourced books on the formation of the constitution. I didn’t find much new that interested me here and a number of others are written with more clarity. McDonald does go into political economy more than most so those interested in that aspect may find different insights. Political economy is important but is just not something that can keep my attention long especially with this author.

[Miriam · Rating 5 out of 5]

Thorough and nuanced. Clear and remarkably concise. McDonald in a mere 300 pages covers the various theories that influenced the founders and addresses how they reformulated all of them to come up with a uniquely American definition of republicanism. In the process, he provides a rich syllabus for further study.

Not for novices. He assumes a fair bit of familiarity with foundational literature.

[Dallin · Rating 4 out of 5]

Useful synthesis of ideological threads at the American Founding, like the tension between civic virtue and self-interested acquisitiveness. Really appreciated the chapter on English rights and how they evolved in the American context. The discussion of slavery is very weak and has aged poorly. If you're looking to learn about the American Founding, I wouldn't start with this book, but most of it still holds up decades later.

[Jack Heller]

I approached this book in the worst possible way: I listened to it as an audiobook while driving. I think the fact that I finished it at all can only be attributed to wanting to finish books I start. But I certainly wasn't able to get the throughline of its argument. If I were ever to try again, I would probably do so listening in my kitchen. I won't put a star rating as I think better circumstances might change my opinion, for worse or better.

[Clayton Brannon · Rating 5 out of 5]

No small feat is accomplished when someone can write on the U.S. Constitution and make it extremely readable. The assertions and facts he propounds are written in such a manner that they are easy for the laymen to read and understand. Great book for any and all who are interested in the origins of our constitution.

[Dan Gorman · Rating 3 out of 5]

A bit more triumphalist than I usually like to read, and prone to supplying dry passages of economic theory, this book is still a superbly researched study of the Constitution's intellectual origins.

[Robo Kreps · Rating 4 out of 5]

I would like to give it a five but there were points in the book that where a bit over my head (not the authors fault at all). I loved the first 2-3 chapters of this book but I was a little lost at the end.

[Dave Benner · Rating 4 out of 5]

Extremely influential analysis of the philosophical underpinnings of American republicanism.

[Dan Seitz · Rating 4 out of 5]

Dry, and the brief discussion of slavery from the view of the founders has aged poorly indeed, but deeply informative and in places deeply amusing as the pettiness of the framers comes to the fore.

[Elliot Kaufman · Rating 3 out of 5]

Started slow but finished strong.

[Roy McCullough · Rating 4 out of 5]

An impressive and provocative examination of the contending ideas, beliefs, and philosophies that informed the thinking of the Framers. Still an important and relevant work today.

[Logan · Rating 5 out of 5]

I really enjoyed this one. It's rare you find a history of ideas. Most of the time it's politics or economics. This one focused on the philosophy of the time and I really loved it. Highly recommend.

[Ralleygato · Rating 5 out of 5]

Challenging for the layman, but important. Really critical to understanding your identity for my fellow Americans out there.

[Will · Rating 4 out of 5]

"The most articulate spokesman for a radical libertarian position was one of the most cultivated of all Americans, Thomas Jefferson. As was typical of him, Jefferson arrived at his theories of liberty largely by mixing an eclectic sampling of the ideas of others with a few conceits that were peculiar to himself. He borrowed his ideas regarding equality from the Scottish Common Sense school and took his epistemology from Locke. From Quesnay and the Scottish Enlightenment he absorbed the 'stages of progress' model of social development, and from his study of Indians he concluded that the primitive stages produced happier and more virtuous men. To all this he added his own notion that generations lacked the right to bind their successors (he proposed an abolition and rewriting of all constitutions and laws, as well as a cancellation of all debts, every nineteen years) as his abstract cherishing of bloodshed ('the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants'). Stirring the mix, what he came up with was, in theory at least, very near to a stateless society under the benevolent leadership of what he called the natural aristocracy. It was a theory that could have been used to justify the traditional societies of the Scottish Highland and Island clans and the Irish tuaths as well as the Virginia society in which Jefferson lived. ('At the southward,' observed the Massachusetts Federalist Fisher Ames, 'a few gentlemen govern; the law is their coat of mail.')

At the northward, most people preferred a position that was considerably further removed from natural liberty. 'It is an unguarded expression,' Ames observed, 'to say, that we part with a portion of our natural liberty, to secure the remainder - for what is the liberty of nature? Exposed to the danger of being knocked on the head for a handful of acorns, or of being devoured by wild beasts, the melancholy savage is the slave of his wants and his fears.' This attitude came far closer than that of radical libertarians to being an American norm. Indeed, most Americans saw, not tension, but interdependence between liberty and law and order. 'There is no other liberty than civil liberty,' Ames added; 'we cannot live without government.' The reason is implied in John Dickinson's statement (strikingly reminiscent of Montesquieu's) that liberty is best described 'in the Holy Scriptures . . . in these expressions - "When every man shall sit under his vine, and under his fig-tree, and none shall make him afraid."' The function of government, in bringing about such a condition, was to protect the people against themselves.

The conception of the nature of man that underlay this point of view was the reverse of that from the libertarian viewpoint. Jefferson thought that man, as an individual, was moral; but he distrusted men in large aggregates and men acting in a corporate capacity. The more general view was that men acting privately were not to be trusted and that they needed to be protected from one another by governments which were based upon popular consent. Thus it was that the Revolutionary state constitutions, though genuflecting in the direction of separation of powers and bills of rights, in practice vested virtually unlimited powers in popularly elected legislatures. The principle was expressed in a pamphlet that Hamilton published in 1774. 'The only distinction between freedom and slavery,' he wrote, 'consists in this: In the former state, a man is governed by the laws to which he has given his consent, either in person, or by his representative: In the latter, he is governed by the will of another.' To this way of thinking, which was especially common in New England, the only necessary check upon the legislatures was frequent elections by the people. The slogan 'Where annual elections end, slavery begins' was on thousands of lips. (By contrast, Jefferson, apropos of the need for restraints upon the powers of the Virginia legislature, warned that '173 despots would surely be as oppressive as one.')"

[Steven Peterson · Rating 4 out of 5]

Forrest McDonald has written some exciting work on the Constitutional era in American history. "Novus Ordo Seclorum" lives up to earlier works.

First, what does he mean by the Latin phrase that is the book's title? One translation might be "a new order of the ages" (page 262). Of this, McDonald says that (page 262):

"So it was that the Framers brought a vast knowledge of history and the whole long tradition of civic humanism with them to Philadelphia in May of 1787, and that they departed four months later having fashioned a frame of government that necessitated a redefinition of most of the terms in which the theory and ideology of civic humanism had been discussed."

McDonald notes that for this "new order," four sets of considerations were important for the Framers as they deliberated upon a new framework for governing, as they moved from the flawed Articles of Confederation to some form that would be more effective. Among these guidelines:

1. Protecting (page 3) "the lives, liberty, and property of the citizenry."
2. A commitment to republicanism (including a role for the people, representative institutions, a distrust of direct democracy.
3. History--including ancient Greece and Rome, prior confederations, and the development of English representative institutions.
4. Political theory, including the works of David Hume, James Harrington, John Locke, Montesquieu, Blackstone, and so on.

One important feature of the debates was, as John Jay and others put it, a sense of urgency. There was a sense that of the Americans could not make republicanism work, then (page 183) "it would not be likely to be tried again anywhere else." There was a sense that the time was special and that the United States could be a model.

This is a very nice work addressing the origins of the Constitution, what was at stake, what went into the debates and the structure of the Constitution.

[Jud Barry · Rating 5 out of 5]

A must-read overview for anyone interested in the intellectual baggage carried by the men who wrote the U.S. Constitution. A good summation, provided by McDonald: "It should be obvious from this survey that it is meaningless to say that the Framers intended this or the the Framers intended that: their positions were diverse and, in many particulars, incompatible. Some had firm, well-rounded plans, some had strong convictions on only a few points, some had self-contradictory ideas, some were guided only by vague ideals. Some of their differences were subject to compromise; others were not." (p. 224.)

As a practical matter, of course, compromise or not, everything came down to votes on resolutions that became the various articles and sections. I can't help but note -- hard on the heels of the 2018 midterm elections, in which Democrats retrieved control of the House but not of the Senate, a result productive of much discussion about just how unrepresentative the Senate is -- that the convention resolution on the famous compromise for equal representation in the Senate was approved by a vote of 5-4, with one state divided (each state had one vote). Among those adamantly opposed to equal representation was James Madison, the Father of the Constitution. Some of the critical votes in favor of equal representation were enabled by people who had originally been in the "adamantly opposed" camp, and by the same token some who voted against it had originally been for it. Sometimes the Constitution seems like a big trial balloon that by some miracle go off the ground and by some further miracle is still floating.

[Carl Johnson · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a fantastic overview of the ideological and practical horizons of political innovation faced by the founding generation as it struggled to reconstitute society in the wake of repudiation of royal and parliamentary authority. Three introductory chapters provide surprisingly detailed overviews of the legal theory, the investment & commercial conventions, and the political theory of late 17th-century Britain and Colonial America. Three following chapters provide concise but insightful summaries of the shakey legal, monetary, and political conditions experienced by the confederated colonies, the experience & perspectives of key founders, and the complex negotiations in Philadelphia that resulted in what became the United States Constitution. A concluding chapter discusses the process of adopting & adapting this frame of government in the transition from a United States consisting of thirteen loosely federated governments to a United States consisting of a unitary federal government comprising a perpetual union of previously independent states.

[Sean Chick · Rating 4 out of 5]

A superb recounting of the intellectual world surrounding the framers, in part because McDonald never goes overboard. He explains the allure and the limitations of a variety of thinkers, both famous and now forgotten. He does not think that intellectual ideas were the prime force in shaping the document, but rather were the background and justification for it. In that sense this is a very articulate refutation of Bailyn, Wood, and Pocock, and arguably the best rebuttal since he does not ignore the importance of ideas. So why did I take off a star? The book supposes that you have some background in the era and his recounting of the actual Constitution lacks the simple but direct language of the rest of the book.

[Paula · Rating 5 out of 5]

I recently reread this, since I had remembered how much I enjoyed reading it some years ago. It is definitely worth a second and many more reads. This dense little history covers the making of the American constitution. It explores the ideas that were discussed, and fought over, in order "to form a more perfect union." It gives one a glimpse into the difficult process of reconciling the needs and wishes of hugely divergent states and peoples over the course of just a few months time. It is amazing, considering how much they had to work through, that the constitution was ever finish, much less that it would ever be radified by all thirteen states. That it happened is thanks to a few brilliant, and dedicated men with an eye toward the future.

[Danny · Rating 3 out of 5]

Ugh! This was extremely difficult for me to read. It started off so well and it maintained my interest for the first 120 pages or so. It was a 5-star read until I went on vacation and couldn't give it my full attention. I kept coming back after long breaks to read more and more and each time it got less and less interesting. I don't know if I'll ever read the last 13 pages. It had some really interesting facts and great quotes but was still difficult to read.

[David Holford · Rating 5 out of 5]

As the subtitle indicates, this is a book about the intellectual origins of the Constitution. McDonald is a solidly conservative scholar of deservedly solid reputation. He is the sort of author that ought to be read, rather than some of the drivel that passes for conservative history. Of course the problem with books like this is that they require a bit more of the reader. This is a serious, scholarly work.

[Bob · Rating 4 out of 5]

An excellent study of the political, social and philosophical views that the founders brought to the Constitutional Convention, and how their divergent views played out in the negotiations. A long-time student of the Constitution, I found some new insights into the intent of the drafters; if "original intent" is the way any of our justices look at the meaning of the document, they should be reading this well-documented book.

[Jon · Rating 5 out of 5]

If you want to read a serious, scholarly treatment of the Founding, this is the book for you. Excellent.