What do you think?
Rate this book
Original Meanings: Politics and Ideas in the Making of the Constitution
From abortion to same-sex marriage, today's most urgent political debates will hinge on this two-part question: What did the United States Constitution originally mean and who now understands its meaning best? Rakove chronicles the Constitution from inception to ratification and, in doing so, traces its complex weave of ideology and interest, showing how this document has meant different things at different times to different groups of Americans.
457 pages, Paperback
First published March 26, 1996
185 people are currently reading
1906 people want to read
About the author
Jack N. Rakove
50 books50 followersJack Rakove is the William Robertson Coe Professor of History and American Studies and professor of political science and (by courtesy) law at Stanford, where he has taught since 1980. His principal areas of research include the origins of the American Revolution and Constitution, the political practice and theory of James Madison, and the role of historical knowledge in constitutional litigation. He is the author of six books, including Original Meanings: Politics and Ideas in the Making of the Constitution (1996), which won the Pulitzer Prize in History, and Revolutionaries: A New History of the Invention of America (2010), which was a finalist for the George Washington Prize, and the editor of seven others, including The Unfinished Election of 2000 (2001). He is a member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, the American Philosophical Society, and a past president of the Society for the History of the Early American Republic.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 71 reviews
April 4, 2013
It is infuriating to me that historians hide their brilliant interpretations of a concept so pertinent to today's political discussion behind incoherent writing styles. This book is at times hopelessly dense, frustrating the everyday interest in early American history. I assume that the Pulitzer is for the message and not the style, but boy do I wish that this guy had a more involved editor and a publisher that cared about typeface and readability. Everything about this book is just dense, and like our richest cakes, can only be consumed in tiny doses.
June 16, 2017
This is a deeply and meticulously researched book, by one of the leading Constitutional scholars/historians Jack Rakove (as distinct from constitutional law; he is not a lawyer). The scholarship is superb and it is as indispensable for politics and law as it is profound historically.
The book is comprehensive: it covers James Madison and his political philosophy writings preceding and during the making of the Constitution; the period preceding and leading to the Constitutional Convention in 1787, at Philadelphia; the politics during the making of the Constitution; the idea of ratification; the debates between Federalists and anti-Federalists during the ratification process; federalism, presidency, representation and Bill of Rights; the idea of legal originalism; and generally philosophy and ideas that were infused into the Constitution.
The general thesis of the book is that originalism as a judicial and political philosophy is untenable, not only because it is difficult, as a historical matter, to ascertain the intention of the framers and understanding of the text during and after ratification, but even more importantly because the very premise of originalism is questionable. There exists no compelling reason to consider original intent, meaning and understanding to be paramount to our understandings today. The Constitution's primary usefulness is not mainly in its strict text, but in its ability to provide general guidelines for the functioning of our gov't and democracy. In that sense, it is a flexible and living document, and cannot simply be reduced to a strict text to be interpreted narrowly, guided by simplistic historical narrative. This book serves as a scholarly antidote to originalism, grounded in a realist approach to history.
WARNING:
The book is very dense in both senses of the word: firstly, it is physically dense - small font, single spaced. Therefore, don't be deceived by its mere 370 pages of reading (the rest are endnotes, index, etc). It feels like at least double of that.
Secondly, due to its intellectual rigor, it's a difficult read. And this coming from a lawyer - I have read quite a few difficult texts in my life. So do yourself a favor - DO NOT skim through it. It is to be read slowly and thoroughly, so that it can be fully absorbed and understood, as well as appreciated.
This book would be perfect for any serious students of history, political science and philosophy, law and politics. However, I would also recommend it to any casual student of history as well, and I am one.
The book is comprehensive: it covers James Madison and his political philosophy writings preceding and during the making of the Constitution; the period preceding and leading to the Constitutional Convention in 1787, at Philadelphia; the politics during the making of the Constitution; the idea of ratification; the debates between Federalists and anti-Federalists during the ratification process; federalism, presidency, representation and Bill of Rights; the idea of legal originalism; and generally philosophy and ideas that were infused into the Constitution.
The general thesis of the book is that originalism as a judicial and political philosophy is untenable, not only because it is difficult, as a historical matter, to ascertain the intention of the framers and understanding of the text during and after ratification, but even more importantly because the very premise of originalism is questionable. There exists no compelling reason to consider original intent, meaning and understanding to be paramount to our understandings today. The Constitution's primary usefulness is not mainly in its strict text, but in its ability to provide general guidelines for the functioning of our gov't and democracy. In that sense, it is a flexible and living document, and cannot simply be reduced to a strict text to be interpreted narrowly, guided by simplistic historical narrative. This book serves as a scholarly antidote to originalism, grounded in a realist approach to history.
WARNING:
The book is very dense in both senses of the word: firstly, it is physically dense - small font, single spaced. Therefore, don't be deceived by its mere 370 pages of reading (the rest are endnotes, index, etc). It feels like at least double of that.
Secondly, due to its intellectual rigor, it's a difficult read. And this coming from a lawyer - I have read quite a few difficult texts in my life. So do yourself a favor - DO NOT skim through it. It is to be read slowly and thoroughly, so that it can be fully absorbed and understood, as well as appreciated.
This book would be perfect for any serious students of history, political science and philosophy, law and politics. However, I would also recommend it to any casual student of history as well, and I am one.
September 7, 2010
This exhaustively researched and beautifully written account of the politics and ideas behind the making of the U.S. Constitution is a model of history at its very best.
Through close and scrupulously fair attention to the arguments of both those who drafted the Constitution in Philadelphia in 1787 and the anti-Federalists who opposed its ratification, Rakove brings to life the political issues and conflicts that shaped the provisions of the Constitution and informed the often conflicting meanings that the different groups attached to it. The result is a picture more nuanced and complex than that offered by the two sides in the current debate over how the Constitution should be interpreted.
Readers will come away from the book understanding the futility of assigning hard and fast original meanings to words crafted, in a dynamic political process, to defuse conflicts and compromise differences among the founders as they sought to create an effective national government. But they will also better understand the consistency of purpose behind the work and ideas of James Madison, who, for Rakove, is the central political and intellectual force behind the Constitution. And they will gain a deeper appreciation for the high level of thinking, argument, and rhetoric among the nation's top politicians in the early years of the nation—intellectual firepower that is so often absent in our politics today.
Through close and scrupulously fair attention to the arguments of both those who drafted the Constitution in Philadelphia in 1787 and the anti-Federalists who opposed its ratification, Rakove brings to life the political issues and conflicts that shaped the provisions of the Constitution and informed the often conflicting meanings that the different groups attached to it. The result is a picture more nuanced and complex than that offered by the two sides in the current debate over how the Constitution should be interpreted.
Readers will come away from the book understanding the futility of assigning hard and fast original meanings to words crafted, in a dynamic political process, to defuse conflicts and compromise differences among the founders as they sought to create an effective national government. But they will also better understand the consistency of purpose behind the work and ideas of James Madison, who, for Rakove, is the central political and intellectual force behind the Constitution. And they will gain a deeper appreciation for the high level of thinking, argument, and rhetoric among the nation's top politicians in the early years of the nation—intellectual firepower that is so often absent in our politics today.
June 22, 2020
This is a fascinating book, but let me start with a caveat: this should not be your first or even second book on the Constitution. It is dense with a capital D. I found myself getting lost and even a teeny bit bored at times, as this book goes deep on issues like ratification, federalism, and representational structures.
That being said, this book flashes with brilliance. Rakove puts forth a few major arguments. First, the book is a measured and largely implicit criticism of originalist jurisprudence. Rakove says that to understand anything approximating an original meaning, you have to examine several phases of Constitutional history: 1. The actual Convention 2. The ratification process 3. The first years of the early republic in which the meaning of the Constitution was debated further and put into practice. The problem with originalism for Rakove is that originalists often privilege one of these phases over others when all of them are crucial for understanding original intent. The bigger problem is that the Constitution is a composite: both a series of compromises, (small state v big, southern v northern, slave v not, Federalist v anti-Federalist) an extension of certain traditions of republicanism and constitutionalism, but also an important modification of those traditions. So it is hard to say what the original meanings were because it meant different things to different people at different times. Rakove wisely avoids saying what he thinks the "real meaning" of each part of the Constitution is. His book, however, obviously adds ammo to the "living Constitution" folks.
One of my favorite aspects of this book is the way Rakove thinks through his sources and his characters. He pays really close attention (in the intro especially) to the purposes of his sources. Madison, for instance, contemplated structures and principles of constitutions, but he was also a politician, and he played up or played down certain aspects of his thought, or even dissembled at times, to win over the Convention and then the country. You have to be really careful in terms of what kind of source you are looking at, and you have to acknowledge that things like original intent are moving targets. The intro of this book is a model for this kind of historical thinking; I might assign it independently in a grad course if I ever get the chance.
The protagonist, so to speak, of this book is Madison. You just can't understand the COnstitution without delving into the mind and the politics of Madison; if anyone deserves to be called the genius behind the Constitution, it would be him. However, Madison also shifted dramatically over the course of his lifetime. During the Revolution he, like most Americans, feared the tyrannical use of executive power, which only made sense in a war of independence against an overbearing King. However, in the 1780s, he witnessed the chaos of a weak union and state governments beholden to the mob, in his eyes, which were assaulting the rights of property. He came then to believe that legislatures enacting a tyranny of the majority and violating minority rights (could be property, religion, he even mentioned slaves). Thus, his design for the Constitution limited/filtered democratic influences on the federal gov't. However, in the 1790s the retracted from his federalism and shifted back toward fearing the executive, although the tyranny of the majority remained a major fear. This book features brilliant discussions of his revision of Montesquieu's thought on republics and other key aspects of his thought.
One more critique: for a book about original meanings that was wading into political and legal territory, I was surprised that he didn't devote a chapter or two to original meanings of the Bill of Rights. This is such a huge debate in the modern era: what does the 2nd amendment mean? What about the establishment clause? This may be asking too much; that may be another book entirely. Still, given the length of some of the chapters on fairly abstruse topics (35 pages on the concept of ratification-the concept, not the public debate), there was definitely room to explore these other issues, even briefly. I was mildly disappointed by this.
That being said, this book flashes with brilliance. Rakove puts forth a few major arguments. First, the book is a measured and largely implicit criticism of originalist jurisprudence. Rakove says that to understand anything approximating an original meaning, you have to examine several phases of Constitutional history: 1. The actual Convention 2. The ratification process 3. The first years of the early republic in which the meaning of the Constitution was debated further and put into practice. The problem with originalism for Rakove is that originalists often privilege one of these phases over others when all of them are crucial for understanding original intent. The bigger problem is that the Constitution is a composite: both a series of compromises, (small state v big, southern v northern, slave v not, Federalist v anti-Federalist) an extension of certain traditions of republicanism and constitutionalism, but also an important modification of those traditions. So it is hard to say what the original meanings were because it meant different things to different people at different times. Rakove wisely avoids saying what he thinks the "real meaning" of each part of the Constitution is. His book, however, obviously adds ammo to the "living Constitution" folks.
One of my favorite aspects of this book is the way Rakove thinks through his sources and his characters. He pays really close attention (in the intro especially) to the purposes of his sources. Madison, for instance, contemplated structures and principles of constitutions, but he was also a politician, and he played up or played down certain aspects of his thought, or even dissembled at times, to win over the Convention and then the country. You have to be really careful in terms of what kind of source you are looking at, and you have to acknowledge that things like original intent are moving targets. The intro of this book is a model for this kind of historical thinking; I might assign it independently in a grad course if I ever get the chance.
The protagonist, so to speak, of this book is Madison. You just can't understand the COnstitution without delving into the mind and the politics of Madison; if anyone deserves to be called the genius behind the Constitution, it would be him. However, Madison also shifted dramatically over the course of his lifetime. During the Revolution he, like most Americans, feared the tyrannical use of executive power, which only made sense in a war of independence against an overbearing King. However, in the 1780s, he witnessed the chaos of a weak union and state governments beholden to the mob, in his eyes, which were assaulting the rights of property. He came then to believe that legislatures enacting a tyranny of the majority and violating minority rights (could be property, religion, he even mentioned slaves). Thus, his design for the Constitution limited/filtered democratic influences on the federal gov't. However, in the 1790s the retracted from his federalism and shifted back toward fearing the executive, although the tyranny of the majority remained a major fear. This book features brilliant discussions of his revision of Montesquieu's thought on republics and other key aspects of his thought.
One more critique: for a book about original meanings that was wading into political and legal territory, I was surprised that he didn't devote a chapter or two to original meanings of the Bill of Rights. This is such a huge debate in the modern era: what does the 2nd amendment mean? What about the establishment clause? This may be asking too much; that may be another book entirely. Still, given the length of some of the chapters on fairly abstruse topics (35 pages on the concept of ratification-the concept, not the public debate), there was definitely room to explore these other issues, even briefly. I was mildly disappointed by this.
January 18, 2016
Rakove's Pulitzer Prize winning work on understanding the intent of the original framers of the Constitution is a timely work, especially given recent Supreme Court nomination battles. Perhaps Rakove's views can best be summarized by the following two quotes, the first attributed to Madison, "When the Almighty himself condescends to address mankind in their own language, his meaning, luminous as it must be, is rendered dim and doubtful by the cloudy medium through which it is communicated." Who said the framers weren't postmodern in their thinking! The second quote, by Thomas Jefferson, "Some men look at constitutions with sanctimonious reverence, and deem them like the Ark of the Covenant, too sacred to be touched. They ascribe to the men of the preceding age a wisdom more than human, and suppose what they did to be beyond amendment . . . forty years of experience in government is worth a century of book-reading; and this they would say themselves, were they to rise from the dead." Though I believe Rakove to be correct in arguing that the constitution is not a document set in stone, yet I have profound concerns with the direction where thinkers like Rakove have, and will take us. This is a journey beset with many dangers.
August 16, 2017
I'm giving this book 5 stars because it is a monumental achievement and an exhaustive review of the available information about the drafting, ratification, and interpretation of the Constitution. It is a scholarly work that deserves the Pulitzer Prize that it won. But it is not light reading. It is, in fact, a difficult read. Mostly I'm proud of myself for having gotten through it (and I'm relieved there won't be a test). Despite the difficulty, I learned a great deal, particularly about how fragile the whole process was. They performed a miracle; there's no other explanation.
November 1, 2020
An incredible and authoritative piece of work, discussing the origins of the US Constitution. This book is really an extended research paper, and is written as such. I would advise attempting it accordingly. A working understanding of US history is presumed of the reader. Interestingly, I came across this book while trying to decide whether to read the Federalist or Anti Federalist papers first. Through a Reddit thread, I understood this to be a preliminary reading for attempting the Federalist Papers, but it's so much more than that. I write this review from an Indian perspective, being a person with very limited understanding of US polity, so the reader of this review is accordingly advised.
To begin with, my understanding of systems of governance, arising out of Constitutions, was quite limited. I understood the Indian Constitution to be a two year conscious attempt at framing a fundamental document for the country, drawn from previous experiences and comparative analysis. I never went into how the early constitutions managed to achieve this. This book was an eye opener.
The first fact that blew my mind was that the Treaty of Philadelphia, which became the US Constitution, was made through a convention organised for reviewing the Articles of the Confederacy that were governing free America since its independence in 1776. Unlike the Indian Constituent Assembly that was carefully chosen for this momentous task, the Philadelphia Convention sat in private meetings. Only 12 of the 13 colonies were represented by delegates (Rhode Island kept out), and there are no official records of the debates unlike the Constitution Assembly Debates of India. With scraps of notes and some reported speeches to go on, the recreation of the making of the US Constitution is a momentous task.
The debates on representation, elections, office of the President, Rights were incredibly informative. In India, universal adult franchise was an understood proposition 19 years before independence (Nehru Report, 1928). In the US, propertied classes were looked upon as minorities whose interests had to be preserved against the majority! Madison's creation of the theory of an extended Republic are enlightening, because it was the first time that a republic beyond a tiny city was attempted. Later constitutions of course benefit from this attempt.
The US Senate was created as a bulwark against majority oppression – it was supposed to secure the voice of the tiny states by representation of two delegates per state. Accordingly, the Senate got powers over appointment, treaty ratification, etc. The debates leading to this understanding are incredible. The Senate was thus a device to prevent majoritarian rule by the Legislature, which was understood to be elected popularly. In India, a bicameral legislature was understood, where the upper house was to be a check on the lower house. Yet, the mode of selection of representatives for the Rajya Sabha pretty much defeats the idea behind the creation of the US Senate – the respective efficacies in relation to their purpose of creation is for the world to see.
As we move towards the Presidency, the concepts turn – a balance of powers was required to ensure that the Presidency + Senate don't gain more power so as to create an aristocracy overwhelming the popular mandate! The Electoral College was a device invented to ensure the selection would be independent and not usurped by a cabal.
The role of the judiciary was interesting – it was understood to be a part of the executive, given how Britain operated. Yet following Montesquieu's theory of Separation of Powers, a separate judiciary was valued. Given that initially, nobody expected a judiciary staffed by professional judges alone, one understands the appointments in the initial years of the court. What is fascinating is the emphasis on juries as a sine qua non for criminal trials– they were to represent the people's stake in justice. In India, jury trials were abolished in 1973 following a famous case where the jury’s acquittal (of KM Nanavati) was a brazen miscarriage of justice. Jury trials were never a central idea of justice incorporating the people’s say in it, like they were in the US.
The debates on the Bill of Rights were the most intriguing. In short, the idea was that rights did not require specific enumeration in the Constitution because they were never to be 'granted' by the Legislature. Also, what was not included may be understood to not be a right. The final capitulation of Madison on this point happened in light of the incredible demand for this requirement. In fact, Madison deviated from many of his original positions throughout the book. In contrast, rights were explicitly defined in the Indian Constitution from its very conception – the debates were on the specific wording.
It's an incredibly informative book created by painstaking research through primary sources. It's a tough read for me, but well worth the effort. It gives me tremendous insight into the positives and negatives of our own system!
To begin with, my understanding of systems of governance, arising out of Constitutions, was quite limited. I understood the Indian Constitution to be a two year conscious attempt at framing a fundamental document for the country, drawn from previous experiences and comparative analysis. I never went into how the early constitutions managed to achieve this. This book was an eye opener.
The first fact that blew my mind was that the Treaty of Philadelphia, which became the US Constitution, was made through a convention organised for reviewing the Articles of the Confederacy that were governing free America since its independence in 1776. Unlike the Indian Constituent Assembly that was carefully chosen for this momentous task, the Philadelphia Convention sat in private meetings. Only 12 of the 13 colonies were represented by delegates (Rhode Island kept out), and there are no official records of the debates unlike the Constitution Assembly Debates of India. With scraps of notes and some reported speeches to go on, the recreation of the making of the US Constitution is a momentous task.
The debates on representation, elections, office of the President, Rights were incredibly informative. In India, universal adult franchise was an understood proposition 19 years before independence (Nehru Report, 1928). In the US, propertied classes were looked upon as minorities whose interests had to be preserved against the majority! Madison's creation of the theory of an extended Republic are enlightening, because it was the first time that a republic beyond a tiny city was attempted. Later constitutions of course benefit from this attempt.
The US Senate was created as a bulwark against majority oppression – it was supposed to secure the voice of the tiny states by representation of two delegates per state. Accordingly, the Senate got powers over appointment, treaty ratification, etc. The debates leading to this understanding are incredible. The Senate was thus a device to prevent majoritarian rule by the Legislature, which was understood to be elected popularly. In India, a bicameral legislature was understood, where the upper house was to be a check on the lower house. Yet, the mode of selection of representatives for the Rajya Sabha pretty much defeats the idea behind the creation of the US Senate – the respective efficacies in relation to their purpose of creation is for the world to see.
As we move towards the Presidency, the concepts turn – a balance of powers was required to ensure that the Presidency + Senate don't gain more power so as to create an aristocracy overwhelming the popular mandate! The Electoral College was a device invented to ensure the selection would be independent and not usurped by a cabal.
The role of the judiciary was interesting – it was understood to be a part of the executive, given how Britain operated. Yet following Montesquieu's theory of Separation of Powers, a separate judiciary was valued. Given that initially, nobody expected a judiciary staffed by professional judges alone, one understands the appointments in the initial years of the court. What is fascinating is the emphasis on juries as a sine qua non for criminal trials– they were to represent the people's stake in justice. In India, jury trials were abolished in 1973 following a famous case where the jury’s acquittal (of KM Nanavati) was a brazen miscarriage of justice. Jury trials were never a central idea of justice incorporating the people’s say in it, like they were in the US.
The debates on the Bill of Rights were the most intriguing. In short, the idea was that rights did not require specific enumeration in the Constitution because they were never to be 'granted' by the Legislature. Also, what was not included may be understood to not be a right. The final capitulation of Madison on this point happened in light of the incredible demand for this requirement. In fact, Madison deviated from many of his original positions throughout the book. In contrast, rights were explicitly defined in the Indian Constitution from its very conception – the debates were on the specific wording.
It's an incredibly informative book created by painstaking research through primary sources. It's a tough read for me, but well worth the effort. It gives me tremendous insight into the positives and negatives of our own system!
February 21, 2013
Professor Rakove's work is a must read for anyone interested in the idea of 'original intent'. In his opening chapter "The Perils of Originalism" he raises a couple of questions. Whose intent and understanding are we to look at, the Framers or the Ratifiers? Are we to look at specific individuals, just a few, or the entirety of those Framers and/or Ratifiers? Inasmuch as several of them changed their opinions over the course of their live, at what time in their life are we to look?
The next couple of chapters describe the road to the Philadelphia Convention and Madison's major role in making it happen. But it is the chapter entitled "Debating the Constitution" that is the meat of the topic.
The author notes that both sides "feared that cunning leaders would manipulate even well-meaning citizens." A note unwarranted idea considering what is occurring today. When considering discussions in the contemporary press one needs to keep in mind that the press was predominately Federalist, tho' several papers attempted to be somewhat even handed. Most people know that James Madison took copious notes, though not necessarily verbatim notes during the convention and that he, John Jay and Alexander Hamilton wrote the Federalist Papers, but Luther Martin, an Anti-Federalist who refused to sign the Constitution wrote a serial history of the Convention. His history is an 'account of its maneuvers and factions' which confirmed in the minds of many that "its secret history was a tale of subversion."
Among Madison's fears and Rakove quotes Madison regarding a 'public decision on a constitutional dispute': "could never be expected to turn on the true merits of the question." He feared that passions would overrule reason. [Again one could argue that this is currently occurring.] The author also notes that the writers of the Federalist Papers had their own doubts they left privately. "[D]oubts that left both men convinced that the Constitution might prove seriously, even fatally, flawed because it lacked key provisions each respectively favored." According to Rakove, Madison apparently felt it better 'to trust future experience to identify remediable defects in an adopted Constitution than to risk the uncertainty of a second convention.'
Rakove goes on to describe the various questions and debates during and after the Convention. Among the Anti-Federalist questions was: "which features of the Constitution were most likely to prove vulnerable to manipulation?
Rakove suggests in his section on "Madison and the Origins of Originalism" that the debate started even before ratification and continued after. During the first session of Congress there was a debate and one of the representatives wrote that another representative had spoken to 'Pubius' and Publius informed him that 'upon mature reflection he had changed his opinion' [regarding the issue of government officers removal by the president. When the Jay Treaty came up for approval Madison apparently had changed his mind about the House involvement in treaties. Rakove notes that when discussing the Treaty "the House was prepared to entertain interpretations reconstructing the positions of framers ratifiers and 'the people'". He continues "[t]he ensuing disagreements prompted a few representatives, on both sides, to suggest that recourse to historical evidence was futile."
Having earlier read 'Science and the Founding Fathers: Science in the Political Thought of Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, and James Madison" by Bernard Cohen I find a different light cast on 'original intent.' These were enlightened men, men of the enlightenment, who reasoned and adapted to changing times. They often referred to the new government as 'an experiment' which can lead one to believe they were able to change their opinions when new evidence came forth. Perhaps the "Original Intent" of the framers, aside from forming a stronger central government, was to create a 'living constitution' that would change with the times.
The next couple of chapters describe the road to the Philadelphia Convention and Madison's major role in making it happen. But it is the chapter entitled "Debating the Constitution" that is the meat of the topic.
The author notes that both sides "feared that cunning leaders would manipulate even well-meaning citizens." A note unwarranted idea considering what is occurring today. When considering discussions in the contemporary press one needs to keep in mind that the press was predominately Federalist, tho' several papers attempted to be somewhat even handed. Most people know that James Madison took copious notes, though not necessarily verbatim notes during the convention and that he, John Jay and Alexander Hamilton wrote the Federalist Papers, but Luther Martin, an Anti-Federalist who refused to sign the Constitution wrote a serial history of the Convention. His history is an 'account of its maneuvers and factions' which confirmed in the minds of many that "its secret history was a tale of subversion."
Among Madison's fears and Rakove quotes Madison regarding a 'public decision on a constitutional dispute': "could never be expected to turn on the true merits of the question." He feared that passions would overrule reason. [Again one could argue that this is currently occurring.] The author also notes that the writers of the Federalist Papers had their own doubts they left privately. "[D]oubts that left both men convinced that the Constitution might prove seriously, even fatally, flawed because it lacked key provisions each respectively favored." According to Rakove, Madison apparently felt it better 'to trust future experience to identify remediable defects in an adopted Constitution than to risk the uncertainty of a second convention.'
Rakove goes on to describe the various questions and debates during and after the Convention. Among the Anti-Federalist questions was: "which features of the Constitution were most likely to prove vulnerable to manipulation?
Rakove suggests in his section on "Madison and the Origins of Originalism" that the debate started even before ratification and continued after. During the first session of Congress there was a debate and one of the representatives wrote that another representative had spoken to 'Pubius' and Publius informed him that 'upon mature reflection he had changed his opinion' [regarding the issue of government officers removal by the president. When the Jay Treaty came up for approval Madison apparently had changed his mind about the House involvement in treaties. Rakove notes that when discussing the Treaty "the House was prepared to entertain interpretations reconstructing the positions of framers ratifiers and 'the people'". He continues "[t]he ensuing disagreements prompted a few representatives, on both sides, to suggest that recourse to historical evidence was futile."
Having earlier read 'Science and the Founding Fathers: Science in the Political Thought of Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, and James Madison" by Bernard Cohen I find a different light cast on 'original intent.' These were enlightened men, men of the enlightenment, who reasoned and adapted to changing times. They often referred to the new government as 'an experiment' which can lead one to believe they were able to change their opinions when new evidence came forth. Perhaps the "Original Intent" of the framers, aside from forming a stronger central government, was to create a 'living constitution' that would change with the times.
April 25, 2016
An intensive, Pulitzer Prize winning look at how our constitution and Bill of Rights came to be - who was for it and who was ag'in it and why. The reasons are still areas of conflict 240 years later. I want to get a hard copy of this book and really study it. A lot to hold in my mind without taking notes.
June 7, 2017
It was DENSE and occaisionally enlightening. Often I would find myself realizing I had no idea what had been said for the previous 15 minutes. You really have to love the subject to find it interesting. On the other hand, it was NOT depressing (unlike many other Pulitzer Prize winning books!)
August 27, 2025
This one was kicking my ass 😭
March 2, 2024
Published in 1996, it has aged well because Rakove stays mostly away from direct reference to contemporary politics, being much more concerned with the politics of the founding era. The closest he gets to the politics of today is where he cites Robert Bork, as a presumably typical “originalist”, as characterizing originalism: that originalism strives to ask how its language would have been understood at the time, and to recover its public understanding, as manifested in the words used in the text, and in secondary materials such as debates at the convention, public discussions, newspaper articles, dictionaries in use at the time, and the like. Having by this time spent the bulk of the text on his distillations of just such materials, he blandly notes that “nothing in Bork’s own principled defense of originalism suggests that he has ever tested his thesis against this evidence. His citations to the records of the federal convention of 1787 indicate that he has encountered the debates only as they happen to be excerpted in a standard legal text.”
Not only did the founders such as Madison and Jefferson assume and expect that future generations would interpret, renew, and update the US Constitution according to their future needs, and informed by the experience gained through the operation of the government apparatus ordained by the Constitution. Not only that, but people generally, the founders, and even Madison himself were often vague and unclear about what the words of the Constitution “meant” at the time.
So, let us not have facile assertions about how the founding fathers were State’s Right-ists. This is a book that defies easy summation, but the overall impression I get on this point is that, if anything, the founders were looking to establish an energetic central government that could keep the States in check. A recurring idea of the time was that the central government, being constituted over a much larger geography, would be less prone to factitious behavior and hence more prone to serve as a bulwark of liberty.
To this point, Madison’s thought underwent substantive evolution over the course of decades. Madison came to appreciate that the true threat to liberty consists not in the government tyrannizing the citizens en masse. The much more likely threat is for minorities of citizens to be tyrannized by their fellows, by action of the legislature. This realization explains the nature of the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights.
You have to be pretty seriously interested in the topic, and pay close attention, to get the full benefit of this scholarly work. Even though I have (did I mention) read the Federalist Papers, it was reading this book where, for the first time, it occurred to me for the first time how “political science” is a legit field of study.
Not only did the founders such as Madison and Jefferson assume and expect that future generations would interpret, renew, and update the US Constitution according to their future needs, and informed by the experience gained through the operation of the government apparatus ordained by the Constitution. Not only that, but people generally, the founders, and even Madison himself were often vague and unclear about what the words of the Constitution “meant” at the time.
So, let us not have facile assertions about how the founding fathers were State’s Right-ists. This is a book that defies easy summation, but the overall impression I get on this point is that, if anything, the founders were looking to establish an energetic central government that could keep the States in check. A recurring idea of the time was that the central government, being constituted over a much larger geography, would be less prone to factitious behavior and hence more prone to serve as a bulwark of liberty.
To this point, Madison’s thought underwent substantive evolution over the course of decades. Madison came to appreciate that the true threat to liberty consists not in the government tyrannizing the citizens en masse. The much more likely threat is for minorities of citizens to be tyrannized by their fellows, by action of the legislature. This realization explains the nature of the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights.
You have to be pretty seriously interested in the topic, and pay close attention, to get the full benefit of this scholarly work. Even though I have (did I mention) read the Federalist Papers, it was reading this book where, for the first time, it occurred to me for the first time how “political science” is a legit field of study.
October 24, 2010
The notion that the "original intentions" of the framers should guide subsequent generations of Americans begs the question, "Who were the framers?" Were these "framers" in lock-step agreement about the meaning of the words in the Constitution? Can we really know the intentions of those who, like Madison and Hamilton, tried to conceal their true intentions from the Congress, their adversaries, and the public? Are we to be forever frozen in the late eighteenth century? Robert Jackson, paraphrasing Lincoln, noted that the Constitution is not a "suicide pact." Neither is it an iron maiden.
On the other hand, if the words of the Constitution can mean anything at all, what is the point of having a written constitution in the first place?
The simple truth of the matter is that the Constitution is a political document, as are its several amendments. The courts, too, are political institutions and politics shapes our evolving understanding of the U.S. Constitution.
As a wise man (me) once said, "You can't take politics out of politics."
On the other hand, if the words of the Constitution can mean anything at all, what is the point of having a written constitution in the first place?
The simple truth of the matter is that the Constitution is a political document, as are its several amendments. The courts, too, are political institutions and politics shapes our evolving understanding of the U.S. Constitution.
As a wise man (me) once said, "You can't take politics out of politics."
April 16, 2017
One of the most timely and compelling reads of the last 5 years for me. While written in 1996 ; Rakove's work illuminates todays constitutional debates with a detailed examination of the public record and the crucial Political dynamics that informed the founders and ratifiers in their work. While this work may be best absorbed and utilized by legal professionals in their day jobs, it is essential and valuable reading for us ordinary citizens trying to gain a foothold in the slippery back and forth emanating from commentators and politicians of all stripes. Professor Rakove did great service to us all by shredding the constitutional debates of so much hysterical and historically misleading arguments to deliver such an intellectually powerful presentation of that extraordinarily unique document that shapes our lives every day and for which we have to thank the Founders. In Rakove's writing we see the the hard work of creation, debate and interpretation spread before us.
One of my favorites though I will Have to read it again to savor all its benefits completely.
One of my favorites though I will Have to read it again to savor all its benefits completely.
July 8, 2008
For those who like to argue with people who claim to know what the founding fathers were thinking (and that we should adhere strictly to their plan). Rakove gives the best short-ish history of the writing of the US constitution, pointing out along the way that the whole thing was basically a compromise to keep as many interests happy as possible. Take that, Scalia/Thomas; James Madison was smarter than the both of you combined.
January 10, 2009
Rakove's book is a silly attack on the Originalist theory of constitutional interpretation. Rakove's argument basically boils down to "Lawyers can't do history! History is for Historians! Whaa! Whaa! Whaa!"
August 24, 2017
Big-word, non-fiction. Not for the faint of heart.
May 16, 2024
A deep dive into the processes, debates, and compromises leading to the Constitution as it stands now. The dense writing style reflects the mixed sense of the document — not only imbibing esteemed Enlightenment sources, but also folding in current concerns of the times. Thus they were in somewhat of the same quandary as we are today - between precedent and prevalent concerns, balancing overreach between mythic deference and pertinent need.
Rakove seems not one to overreach in either camp of original or living readings - as he discerns troubles with each. Instead, he delineates the ambiguities and multiplicities behind the document in its making. Sharing both their impress of enlightenment thought and the necessary nitty-grit of political compromise.
Rakove seems not one to overreach in either camp of original or living readings - as he discerns troubles with each. Instead, he delineates the ambiguities and multiplicities behind the document in its making. Sharing both their impress of enlightenment thought and the necessary nitty-grit of political compromise.
April 8, 2023
This one is not for the casual reader. If you really get into authors like David McCullough, Ron Chernow, Joseph J Ellis, and similar storytelling historians…this is nothing like them. Micro-histories can be exhausting even when more mainstream, but this is a dense, scholarly, thick-prosed account of the drafting of the US Constitution, every single obstacle, every intention behind every paragraph, and every objection along the way. If nothing else, it illustrates just how miraculous the completed Constitution is, given just how many objections from the different states had to be navigated.
September 21, 2015
The best thing I've read on the mind and political context of the Founders at the various founding moments...the deliberation and intention of the 1787 Framers, the deliberations and intentions of the state ratification conventions c. 1787-1789, and the early debates over the institutionalization of the constitutional clauses and where the sources of political danger lurked. Jack Rakove is another of Bernard Bailyn's crowded stable of brilliant students who with Bailyn have moved on to reshape the study of pre-revolutionary, revolutionary, and Federalist America. Original Meanings (and the plural "s" is significant) is a seminal contribution to a discussion that should dominate the next presidential election. Rakove's critics will argue that he's hostile to the anti-Federalists and to today's Originalists (led by their Heralds, Scalia and Thomas), but Rakove convinces me - and I suppose it's needless to say, I take a side in this particular debate but more or less pride myself in my ability to preserve analytic objectivity and to weigh an argument and its logic - that all the controversies of Originalism and the "Framer's intent" are vastly more political than historical (although, as Rakove points out more than once, clarity on the historical questions is essential to inform any conversation on the controversial constitutional topics).
For me - and please pardon the editorial digression - Originalism seems a variation of the Reformation battlecry, "Sola Scriptora!" (It's more than a little ironic that skepticism of scripture is associated more closely with Roman Catholic, rather than Protestant, tradition, but the Supreme Court's conservative caucus is uniformly devout RCC.) In government, this is a recipe - as several of the Founders and their philosophic forebears pointed out - for the dead hand of the past continuing to grip throats in the present. Jefferson opined, often, in writing (and presumably in conversation) that each generation of Americans needed to rewrite the Constitution to suit their own times. (But he was, of course, in France, corresponding with Jamie Madison, whose story dominates these pages, while the constitution was being drafted and crawling through state-by-state ratification.) Well, we've had our constitution, warts and all, for more than 225 years, and we see what 225 years of interpreting a pre-steam-engine, slaveholder-endorsed, wild-frontier-considerate document has done to warp our body politic...and the warpage continues as the political winds blow through the Supreme Court, giving some folks the decisions they long for and others the rage that animates political rivalries bent upon overturning malign majorities on the Court. Needless to say, the constitution has been amended a mere 17 times (and, I'll bet, never again) since the first Bill-of-Rights block of amendments that were the Federalists' promise to the state ratifying conventions that, "Okay, okay, we can have a Bill of Rights" as the price of ratification, but we're unlikely ever again to see anything that approximates the 1787 meeting to "propose amendments" to the Articles of Confederation. That's the rut we're in.
That story - the tale of how our great founding documents tugged and pulled into place, every issue, every bloody round of politics, every ratification struggle, with of course the Federalist Papers and the great Anti-Federalist spokesmen at center stage - is told in close, exhaustively researched detail by author Rakove, who has ended not a single argument (as in all humility he scarcely expected to) but has written a starting point for understanding the welter of issues that occupied political Americans from the mid-1780s and the palpable failures of the Articles of Confederation until the opening of Federal government business, when the provisions of the Constitution began to be realized in operational government form.
So I remain in the tank for the Bailyn School of Colonial-Revolutionary historiography, and I adore this book, and particularly for its continued - I'd say eternal - relevance to a nuanced understanding of American political life. Do tackle Original Meanings. It's a dense, closely argued work, and not for beginners, but it's an essential book for our - and any - time.
For me - and please pardon the editorial digression - Originalism seems a variation of the Reformation battlecry, "Sola Scriptora!" (It's more than a little ironic that skepticism of scripture is associated more closely with Roman Catholic, rather than Protestant, tradition, but the Supreme Court's conservative caucus is uniformly devout RCC.) In government, this is a recipe - as several of the Founders and their philosophic forebears pointed out - for the dead hand of the past continuing to grip throats in the present. Jefferson opined, often, in writing (and presumably in conversation) that each generation of Americans needed to rewrite the Constitution to suit their own times. (But he was, of course, in France, corresponding with Jamie Madison, whose story dominates these pages, while the constitution was being drafted and crawling through state-by-state ratification.) Well, we've had our constitution, warts and all, for more than 225 years, and we see what 225 years of interpreting a pre-steam-engine, slaveholder-endorsed, wild-frontier-considerate document has done to warp our body politic...and the warpage continues as the political winds blow through the Supreme Court, giving some folks the decisions they long for and others the rage that animates political rivalries bent upon overturning malign majorities on the Court. Needless to say, the constitution has been amended a mere 17 times (and, I'll bet, never again) since the first Bill-of-Rights block of amendments that were the Federalists' promise to the state ratifying conventions that, "Okay, okay, we can have a Bill of Rights" as the price of ratification, but we're unlikely ever again to see anything that approximates the 1787 meeting to "propose amendments" to the Articles of Confederation. That's the rut we're in.
That story - the tale of how our great founding documents tugged and pulled into place, every issue, every bloody round of politics, every ratification struggle, with of course the Federalist Papers and the great Anti-Federalist spokesmen at center stage - is told in close, exhaustively researched detail by author Rakove, who has ended not a single argument (as in all humility he scarcely expected to) but has written a starting point for understanding the welter of issues that occupied political Americans from the mid-1780s and the palpable failures of the Articles of Confederation until the opening of Federal government business, when the provisions of the Constitution began to be realized in operational government form.
So I remain in the tank for the Bailyn School of Colonial-Revolutionary historiography, and I adore this book, and particularly for its continued - I'd say eternal - relevance to a nuanced understanding of American political life. Do tackle Original Meanings. It's a dense, closely argued work, and not for beginners, but it's an essential book for our - and any - time.
Want to read
February 21, 2013Original meanings: politics and ideas in the making of the Constitution
Jack N. Rakove
22 Reviews
A.A. Knopf, 1996 - 439 pages
What did the U.S. Constitution originally mean, and who has understood its meaning best? Do we look to the intentions of its framers at the Federal Convention of 1787, or to those of its ratifiers in the states? Or should we trust our own judgment in deciding whether the original meaning of the Constitution should still guide its later interpretation? These are the recurring questions in the ongoing process of analyzing and resolving constitutional issues, but they are also questions about the distant events of the eighteenth century. In this book, Jack Rakove approaches the debates surrounding the framing and ratification of the Constitution from the vantage point of history, examining the range of concerns that shaped the politics of constitution-making in the late 1780s, and which illuminate the debate about the role that "originalism" should play in constitutional interpretation. In answering these questions, Rakove reexamines the classic issues that the framers of the Constitution had to solve: federalism, representation, executive power, rights, and the idea that a constitution somehow embodied supreme law. In each of these cases, Original Meanings suggests that Americans of the early Republic held a spectrum of positions, some drawn from the controversial legacy of Anglo-American politics, others reflecting the course of events since 1776, the politics of the Federal Convention, or the spirited public debate that followed.
Jack N. Rakove
22 Reviews
A.A. Knopf, 1996 - 439 pages
What did the U.S. Constitution originally mean, and who has understood its meaning best? Do we look to the intentions of its framers at the Federal Convention of 1787, or to those of its ratifiers in the states? Or should we trust our own judgment in deciding whether the original meaning of the Constitution should still guide its later interpretation? These are the recurring questions in the ongoing process of analyzing and resolving constitutional issues, but they are also questions about the distant events of the eighteenth century. In this book, Jack Rakove approaches the debates surrounding the framing and ratification of the Constitution from the vantage point of history, examining the range of concerns that shaped the politics of constitution-making in the late 1780s, and which illuminate the debate about the role that "originalism" should play in constitutional interpretation. In answering these questions, Rakove reexamines the classic issues that the framers of the Constitution had to solve: federalism, representation, executive power, rights, and the idea that a constitution somehow embodied supreme law. In each of these cases, Original Meanings suggests that Americans of the early Republic held a spectrum of positions, some drawn from the controversial legacy of Anglo-American politics, others reflecting the course of events since 1776, the politics of the Federal Convention, or the spirited public debate that followed.
October 29, 2011
Original Meanings gives some new insights into this current notion of the original meanings of the Founding Fathers in crafting the U.S. Constitution. Not an easy read--fairly scholarly. This book won the Pulitzer Prize. Some extremely interesting insights and quotes as to what many of the Founding Fathers felt about whether the Constitution should be looked at from their point of view or whether it really is a "living document." Also, a factor that I had never heard discussed is what the original meaning as far as the Constitutional Convention saw it and how the different state ratifying convention interpreted it.
The other really interesting thing driven home to me is that the Constitution should probably not be considered a perfect document. None of the Founding Fathers felt that it was. Many had some grave concerns about several things in it, but felt it was better to compromise on some of their ideals in order to get a document put together which could pass the concerns of the various situations in the thirteen colonies.
I also learned a lot about the Bill of Rights and its place in the Constitution and the division in the Founders to put such a piece into the Constitution and what the concerns were with the enumeration of these rights were. I would recommend this book if you have a real interest in the intentions of the Founding Fathers were...and especially if you consider yourself a so-called Constitutionalist.
The other really interesting thing driven home to me is that the Constitution should probably not be considered a perfect document. None of the Founding Fathers felt that it was. Many had some grave concerns about several things in it, but felt it was better to compromise on some of their ideals in order to get a document put together which could pass the concerns of the various situations in the thirteen colonies.
I also learned a lot about the Bill of Rights and its place in the Constitution and the division in the Founders to put such a piece into the Constitution and what the concerns were with the enumeration of these rights were. I would recommend this book if you have a real interest in the intentions of the Founding Fathers were...and especially if you consider yourself a so-called Constitutionalist.
August 28, 2011
This is a very scholarly book which I found difficult to read and retain. If you are not writing a term paper or a thesis then you better be into constitutional history big time. I was looking for a book that would help me better understand the intentions of the framers when they wrote some of the more currently controversial amendments such as the right to bear arms,etc. This book delves into the back story of the writing and ratification of the constitution. It is well written and does provide fascinating insight into the difficulty of trying to comprehend what the founding fathers intended and what the ratifiers interpreted their writings to mean. The biggest learning for me was that before you start using a part of the constitution to bolster an argument you better have done your homework because determining original meanings is complex and requires considerable study. It also was a worthwhile read because it showed how difficult it was to write and get agreement on many parts of the constitution,especially the Bill of Rights. It is a shame that as a society we probably are undereducated on both the content and the history of our most famous document. Consequentially,we probably underappreciate it and the people who toiled to create it.
July 7, 2011
Very good book for research; however, reading this book both reflects onto me my interests and also my growth as a truth-seeker. To truly understand the words of the Constitution requires the study, in my opinion, of the texts that made up the era including the ideas of Locke, Montesquieu, Hume, and the other political philosophers of the Enlightenment era. Additionally, the Federalist Papers must be taken into account too. The author does a very excellent job in putting together the information although I found a lot of it review although the information on rights in the second to last chapter and originalism do interest me. Otherwise, it was not that interesting to me to read an overall work. Reading The Federalist Papers I think would be beneficial for me along with the Anti-Federalist Papers in the future.
October 7, 2017
I saw Jack Rakove speak on a panel on Constitution Day and thought I would give his book a try in spite of reviews suggesting it would probably be over my head. It was, but I am still glad I read it.
This book the latest in a series of sobering moments I have had where I feel like I have given a topic some though, only to be completely overwhelmed by how deeply someone else has thought about it. I can take umbrage at the fact that it is Rakove's life work, but it leaves me wondering why I even try to think about or have an opinion. It makes me dream of living in a technocracy where people like me don't need/get to worry about the issues, decisions are just made by the people who know the most. Unfortunately I also don't trust human nature enough to think that would be anything but a recipe for despotism...
Anyway, good book...
This book the latest in a series of sobering moments I have had where I feel like I have given a topic some though, only to be completely overwhelmed by how deeply someone else has thought about it. I can take umbrage at the fact that it is Rakove's life work, but it leaves me wondering why I even try to think about or have an opinion. It makes me dream of living in a technocracy where people like me don't need/get to worry about the issues, decisions are just made by the people who know the most. Unfortunately I also don't trust human nature enough to think that would be anything but a recipe for despotism...
Anyway, good book...
June 13, 2010
A scholarly work about the creation of the constitution, including some discussion about the current debate of constitutional interpretation by examining original intent of the founders. Or should it be the ratifiers? Or was the intent that the meaning would evolve through judicial interpretation. See p. 18 Argument re: ignoring the charge to amend the Articles: p. 101-109,134. Science of Politics p 154-160. States in a state of nature 1063-5. "Coda" nice discussion of originalist arguments p 366-8
June 29, 2016
This was a solid, thought-provoking read of the crafting of the U.S. Constitution. I had never considered interpreting the entire document as a whole of intricate parts, I guess I presumed to take each one as a unique and standalone feature. Admittedly, I found it a little dry and the spirit and wording read like a grad school theoretical text book. At any rate, I do recommend for a reader interested in historical facts and a greater understanding of the politics, compromise, and even (losing sides of) debates long forgotten in formal political schooling.
March 7, 2017
I listened to an audio recording of this book while at work, so I'm sure I'm missing some of the finer details, but I always find it helpful to remind myself there is no one true interpretation of the constitution, among the founding fathers or even a father. The constitutional convention only approved by a margin of one or two votes?? Beware of anyone who states I know what they wanted, because they didn't even know what they wanted. We ascribe them a mythical level of knowledge and foresight, yet they were Some Guys. I'm sure I'll come back to this again!
April 25, 2015
I wish I could rate this higher, for some passages are good and Rakove does a fine job of showing the murky, contested and archaic aspects of the Constitution's original meaning. But where he succeeds at explaining some of the ideas, his language seems to veer off into the vague. Most of all he fails to discuss the politics with the same energy, insight, and detail. So there you have it a flawed and mostly unoriginal book that is obsessed with Madison.
December 11, 2017
Clearly a scholarly and thoroughly researched investigation into the intentions of the founding fathers, not to mention their philosophical inspirations stretching back into preceding centuries, this book does raise some intriguing questions regarding not only the founders' intentions but whether we should even be chasing that holy grail as opposed to using our own experiences as the basis to continually re-evaluate our governing documents. Dense writing makes for a challenging read, however.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 71 reviews