What do you think?
Rate this book
The Words That Made Us: America's Constitutional Conversation, 1760-1840
A history of the American Constitution's formative decades from a preeminent legal scholarWhen the US Constitution won popular approval in 1788, it was the culmination of thirty years of passionate argument over the nature of government. But ratification hardly ended the conversation. For the next half century, ordinary Americans and statesmen alike continued to wrestle with weighty questions in the halls of government and in the pages of newspapers. Should the nation's borders be expanded? Should America allow slavery to spread westward? What rights should Indian nations hold? What was the proper role of the judicial branch? In The Words that Made Us, Akhil Reed Amar unites history and law in a vivid narrative of the biggest constitutional questions early Americans confronted, and he expertly assesses the answers they offered. His account of the document's origins and consolidation is a guide for anyone seeking to properly understand America's Constitution today.
833 pages, Kindle Edition
Published May 4, 2021
282 people are currently reading
2383 people want to read
About the author
Akhil Reed Amar
31 books182 followersAkhil Reed Amar is currently Sterling Professor of Law and Political Science at Yale University, where he teaches constitutional law in both Yale College and Yale Law School. He received his B.A, summa cum laude, in 1980 from Yale College, and his J.D. in 1984 from Yale Law School, where he served as an editor of The Yale Law Journal. After clerking for Judge Stephen Breyer, he joined the Yale faculty in 1985. In 1994 he received the Paul Bator award from the Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy, and in 1997 he was awarded an honorary doctorate of law by Suffolk University. In 1995 the National Law Journal named him as one of 40 “Rising Stars in the Law,” and in 1997 The American Lawyer placed him on their “Public Sector 45" list. His work on the Bill of Rights also earned the ABA Certificate of Merit and the Yale University Press Governor’s Award. He has delivered endowed lectures at over two dozen colleges and universities, and has written widely on constitutional issues for such publications as The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Los Angeles Times, The Wall Street Journal, Time Magazine, The New Republic, and Slate. He is also a contributing editor to The American Lawyer. His many law review articles and books have been widely cited by scholars, judges, and lawmakers; for example, the Justices of the United States Supreme Court have invoked his work in more than twenty cases, and he has testified before Congress on a wide range of constitutional issues. Along with Dean Paul Brest and Professors Sanford Levinson, Jack Balkin, and Reva Siegel, Professor Amar is the co-editor of a leading constitutional law casebook, Processes of Constitutional Decisionmaking. He is also the author of several books, including The Constitution and Criminal Procedure: First Principles (Yale Univ. Press, 1997), The Bill of Rights: Creation and Reconstruction (Yale Univ. Press, 1998), America’s Constitution: A Biography (Random House 2005), and most recently, America’s Unwritten Constitution: The Precedents and Principles We Live By (Basic Books, 2012).
from http://www.law.yale.edu/faculty/amarb...
from http://www.law.yale.edu/faculty/amarb...
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 72 reviews
July 2, 2021
I was introduced to Mr Amar thanks to his participation in the extraordinary C-SPAN series entitled “Landmark Cases,” and among all legal scholars on the series over its entire two seasons, Mr Amar was undoubtedly the premier thinker and presenter of Constitutional history. His book, “The Words that Made Us,” is a masterpiece of American intellectual, legal, and national history.
July 30, 2023
A remarkable book, even if every chapter isn't necessarily riveting. The core concept of this book is great: to expand our chronological aperture on the Constitutional conversation, or Americans conversations about the law, sovereignty, the courts, and hte foundations of legitimate political rule. He traces this conversation from the early 1760s when Americans first started to challenge Parliamentary sovereignty to about 1840, just as the debate about slavery and the COnstitution started to heat up. Amar says he wants to complete 2 more volumes: The Words that Made Us Equal from 1840 to 1920, and teh Words and Made Us Modern from 1920 to 2000. I think this would be one of the greatest historical trilogies ever written.
Amar's thesis is that there was actually a lot more consensus about the Constitution than later accounts of the revolutionary period might portray. Starting in the 1760s, colonists challenged the right of Parliament to tax them without representation, which evolved into challenging Parliament's right to tax them at all. The initial beef with GB was mainly with Parliament, not the King, to whom the colonists pronounced their loyalty until the last years before the Revolution. In the 1770s and 1780s, the doctrine of popular sovereignty took hold in which colonial leaders believed that all power derived from the people's consent and that each branch of govt must have some ultimate link to popular will to be legitimate. Moreover, most parties in the 1780s agreed that the Articles of Confederation were simply too weak and ineffective to be sustainable for the long run. Of course there were political and economic crises in the 1780s, but it wasn't the crises that sparked the move to a COnstitutional Convention but the realization that a powerful, continental republic was impossible under the current scheme. This is a major theme in this book: the Constitution as a means to build a powerful state, one which could not only survive in the dog-eat-dog competition of global politics but ensure its power and wealth through continental expansion.
The final important point of consensus was a person: George Washington. Washington understood his role as the symbol of the nascent nation in an era in which primary loyalties were to states. He played this role perfectly at the Constitutional Convention, speaking little but overseeing the deliberations and subtly pushing for a stronger federal gov't. As president, he and Hamilton set the country up for power and success by building the foundations of a modern financial and tax system as well as a national military. Amar doesn't dismiss the Federalist v Anti-Federalist debate, but he shows that for the most part that debate took place on a bedrock of ideas that most AMericans agreed upon.
I think one of the most unique contributions of this book is Amar's argument that the constitutional process was actually far more democratic, open, and legitimate than many historians argue. Of course, there's an incredible range of historiographical views on the Revolutionary era, but many historians have taken the lead of Charles Beard to argue that the Constitution was somewhat of an elite coup. Many argue, for example, that elites like Madison saw populist policies like paper money and debt forgiveness as threats to their rule and met in secret to establish a more centralized govt in which only one branch (the House) would be directly elected by the people. Amar, however, shows that "America was in the room" at the Constitutional Convention in 1787, meaning that most of the ideas put forth were already widely in discussion among the reading classes of the time period. They were also often in the state-level Constitutions, which had significant popular assent and input. Finally, not only was the Constitution debated and ratified by the people of the states, suffrage requirements were lowered for elections to the ratifying conventions, enabling a much wider popular participation than normal. Of course, this was still confined to white men, but as historian like Wood or Amar have shown, no other country in the world had ever had as broad a constitutional process as this at that point in history.
Amar then extends the constitutional conversation into the 19th century, exploring factors like the development of the courts (important if slightly less compelling chapters), the rise of parties, the ascent of Jacksonian politics, and nullification debates. He convincingly shows that no one at the COnstitutional Convention thought that there was a right of secession; they were creating an indissoluble nation, not a treaty or confederation of states. The whole point was strength through unity, which the Framers (even the South Carolinians!) understood was impossible if states could just peace out whenever they wanted to. Of course, this union was made possible by major consequences, including de facto protections for slavery in its existing boundaries in the Constitution. The 3/5ths compromise, which affected the apportionment of House seats and presidential electors, ensured pro-slavery power at the federal level, which undermined much of the promise of the young republic. These points aside, it was great to see how succeeding generations from the framers ran with and altered the constitutional conversation in the first decades of the 19th century.
A few mild critiques: the chapters are very long, and not all of them are super interesting. I kind of slogged through the ones on the development of the court system. Also, there are a few cringey pop-culture references, and the book should have been purged of awkward references to Lin Manuel-Miranda. Still, this is a compelling book for how to think about the Constitution historically from someone who knows both the law and the history, which is not always the case. I think the most powerful part of the book came in discussions of implied powers, when Hamilton and Marshall independently made the same points: if the Constitution had to list every thing the government was permitted to do, it would become both hide-bound and thousands of pages long! The debate, the one that we still partake in, was about the meaning of the words, which set parameters and processes for legitimate governance rather than spelling out everything the COnstitution can and cannot do. It was intended to be a short document, also, so that ordinary people could read it, understand it, and take part in that conversation. I think that's a very powerful vision for an engaged, literate, democratic citizenry.
Highly recommended, although you should never read just one book on the Constitution!
Amar's thesis is that there was actually a lot more consensus about the Constitution than later accounts of the revolutionary period might portray. Starting in the 1760s, colonists challenged the right of Parliament to tax them without representation, which evolved into challenging Parliament's right to tax them at all. The initial beef with GB was mainly with Parliament, not the King, to whom the colonists pronounced their loyalty until the last years before the Revolution. In the 1770s and 1780s, the doctrine of popular sovereignty took hold in which colonial leaders believed that all power derived from the people's consent and that each branch of govt must have some ultimate link to popular will to be legitimate. Moreover, most parties in the 1780s agreed that the Articles of Confederation were simply too weak and ineffective to be sustainable for the long run. Of course there were political and economic crises in the 1780s, but it wasn't the crises that sparked the move to a COnstitutional Convention but the realization that a powerful, continental republic was impossible under the current scheme. This is a major theme in this book: the Constitution as a means to build a powerful state, one which could not only survive in the dog-eat-dog competition of global politics but ensure its power and wealth through continental expansion.
The final important point of consensus was a person: George Washington. Washington understood his role as the symbol of the nascent nation in an era in which primary loyalties were to states. He played this role perfectly at the Constitutional Convention, speaking little but overseeing the deliberations and subtly pushing for a stronger federal gov't. As president, he and Hamilton set the country up for power and success by building the foundations of a modern financial and tax system as well as a national military. Amar doesn't dismiss the Federalist v Anti-Federalist debate, but he shows that for the most part that debate took place on a bedrock of ideas that most AMericans agreed upon.
I think one of the most unique contributions of this book is Amar's argument that the constitutional process was actually far more democratic, open, and legitimate than many historians argue. Of course, there's an incredible range of historiographical views on the Revolutionary era, but many historians have taken the lead of Charles Beard to argue that the Constitution was somewhat of an elite coup. Many argue, for example, that elites like Madison saw populist policies like paper money and debt forgiveness as threats to their rule and met in secret to establish a more centralized govt in which only one branch (the House) would be directly elected by the people. Amar, however, shows that "America was in the room" at the Constitutional Convention in 1787, meaning that most of the ideas put forth were already widely in discussion among the reading classes of the time period. They were also often in the state-level Constitutions, which had significant popular assent and input. Finally, not only was the Constitution debated and ratified by the people of the states, suffrage requirements were lowered for elections to the ratifying conventions, enabling a much wider popular participation than normal. Of course, this was still confined to white men, but as historian like Wood or Amar have shown, no other country in the world had ever had as broad a constitutional process as this at that point in history.
Amar then extends the constitutional conversation into the 19th century, exploring factors like the development of the courts (important if slightly less compelling chapters), the rise of parties, the ascent of Jacksonian politics, and nullification debates. He convincingly shows that no one at the COnstitutional Convention thought that there was a right of secession; they were creating an indissoluble nation, not a treaty or confederation of states. The whole point was strength through unity, which the Framers (even the South Carolinians!) understood was impossible if states could just peace out whenever they wanted to. Of course, this union was made possible by major consequences, including de facto protections for slavery in its existing boundaries in the Constitution. The 3/5ths compromise, which affected the apportionment of House seats and presidential electors, ensured pro-slavery power at the federal level, which undermined much of the promise of the young republic. These points aside, it was great to see how succeeding generations from the framers ran with and altered the constitutional conversation in the first decades of the 19th century.
A few mild critiques: the chapters are very long, and not all of them are super interesting. I kind of slogged through the ones on the development of the court system. Also, there are a few cringey pop-culture references, and the book should have been purged of awkward references to Lin Manuel-Miranda. Still, this is a compelling book for how to think about the Constitution historically from someone who knows both the law and the history, which is not always the case. I think the most powerful part of the book came in discussions of implied powers, when Hamilton and Marshall independently made the same points: if the Constitution had to list every thing the government was permitted to do, it would become both hide-bound and thousands of pages long! The debate, the one that we still partake in, was about the meaning of the words, which set parameters and processes for legitimate governance rather than spelling out everything the COnstitution can and cannot do. It was intended to be a short document, also, so that ordinary people could read it, understand it, and take part in that conversation. I think that's a very powerful vision for an engaged, literate, democratic citizenry.
Highly recommended, although you should never read just one book on the Constitution!
June 26, 2024
What good are rights if you don't know the full extent of what yours are and/or can't afford to hire people to defend you?
This is a thorough text that I think more people should read if they have an interest in our current constitutional crises and how we got here. I don't feel fit to rate or review it because there is a lot to pull apart and examine and a lot left over for a sequel to address the US's "constitutional conversation" in contemporary times, and I don't have the background or qualifications for it.
That aside, it's an interesting read and I learned a lot.
This is a thorough text that I think more people should read if they have an interest in our current constitutional crises and how we got here. I don't feel fit to rate or review it because there is a lot to pull apart and examine and a lot left over for a sequel to address the US's "constitutional conversation" in contemporary times, and I don't have the background or qualifications for it.
That aside, it's an interesting read and I learned a lot.
February 3, 2022
There’s a useful argument about the centralizing principles of the Constitution that have been wound like a thread through sausage fat of the usual paeans to the usual suspects. Bet you’ll never guess who was the Greatest Founder of all! (Hint: he was six foot twenty, made of radiation.)
And FFS please be warned, Thoughtful Reader, before you hit the Postscript where Yale’s Sterling Professor of Law literally #bothsides American politics in 2020: “We need facts and analysis, not reflexive right-wing boosterism or knee-jerk leftist hooting. . . . On some issues, today’s conservatives are absolutely right on the law and the facts; on other issues, today’s liberals are 100 percent correct.” Cringe, as today’s constitutional conversationalists would say.
And FFS please be warned, Thoughtful Reader, before you hit the Postscript where Yale’s Sterling Professor of Law literally #bothsides American politics in 2020: “We need facts and analysis, not reflexive right-wing boosterism or knee-jerk leftist hooting. . . . On some issues, today’s conservatives are absolutely right on the law and the facts; on other issues, today’s liberals are 100 percent correct.” Cringe, as today’s constitutional conversationalists would say.
May 20, 2021
I can firmly say this is the best book I have read so far this year. I would give it 6.5 stars.
You will be entertained, educated, and enthralled while reading this book.
I learned so much I didn’t know about the Constitution, our Founders, constitutional law...all the things.
Absolutely superb.
You will be entertained, educated, and enthralled while reading this book.
I learned so much I didn’t know about the Constitution, our Founders, constitutional law...all the things.
Absolutely superb.
November 29, 2025
3.5 Stars
This book is a contrarian take on the origins, birth, and early implementation of the U.S. Constitution, focusing on particular key players (Washington, Hamilton, Madison, Marshall, Jefferson, Adams, & Jackson), motives, Scotus decisions, & text. The author disagrees with a number of historians.
There is much I like here, especially the thought provoking perspectives the author offers up on people and events. Unfortunately, there are also assertions I find to be exaggerations or misleading and a definitive case of presentism over slavery.
A few thought provokers:
(1) He argues the Articles of Confederation were a necessary interim step to the Constitution because independence from the British crown & Parliament created sovereign states in each colony. Jealous of this new found ‘power’ these colonies saw themselves as ‘independent states’ now and they put severe restraints on this new Confederation they created, thereby forcing it to go through a trial period of sorts to reveal its limitations, ultimately provoking need for the continental Constitutional convention.
(2) The real ‘father’ of the Constitution was Washington, not Madison or Hamilton. Why? (Washington never opened his mouth during the debates as he presided over proceedings.)The author says that by his acceptance to preside, Washington added his integrity, credibility, and gravitas and motivated many of the jealous state delegates to attend. “If the convention is worthy of Washington’s presence it must be important.” In addition, Washington was a proponent of a strong national government because of the need for national defense after his dismal experience during the revolutionary war where the Confederation Congress was impotent in helping the revolutionary cause.
(3) The explanation of Marbury v Madison is the first I’ve read that drove home the cleverness of Marshall. The concept of ‘judicial review’ was deeply rooted in the Constitution before this case (see Federalist (#78) and Marshall reached the right decision for the wrong reason. The law in question (Judiciary Act of 1801) tried to expand SCOTUS jurisdiction but the Constitution didn’t give Congress that power and thus was unconstitutional.
By claiming the Court did not have jurisdiction, he avoided an almost certain direct confrontation with President Jefferson which might have broken the young Court and Constitution. In the words of the author, “SCOTUS GAINED this power to declare acts unconstitutional by DENYING this power.” (🤪🤪🤪)
A few things I dislike:
(1) He states that Washington freed his slaves upon death but he actually freed only his long time valet. The rest of his slaves were not to be freed until Martha’s death but Martha freed them a year later anyway. Picky maybe, but the author makes a big deal about this when comparing Washington’s slave ownership to Jefferson and Madison’s. An example of presentism.
(2) The author really piles on the praise for George and Alexander and hammers Jefferson and Madison unmercifully: Washington (the Indispensable Man), Hamilton (Mr. Federalist) & Marshall (the Holy Spirit)are the heroes in this narrative. Jefferson is the Anti-Christ, Madison the intellectually brilliant turncoat (from Federalist to Anti-Federalist & Jefferson sycophant), and Adams the Constitutional village idiot (Alien & Seditions Acts). A bit too much for me but not without some connection with the truth.
(3) Author quote: “ Washington’s blunder in 1754 triggered the Seven Years War between Britain & France”: C’mon man, those 2 countries were at each other’s throats in N. America for decades before Washington’s unfortunate gaffe (killing French ambassador in an ambush)
There are more dislikes and likes as the above observations merely scratch the surface of what’s here and it is well worth a read (imo).
Other author quotes:
“The purpose of this book is to unite law and history to understand the past & evaluate it through historical and legal analysis.”
“One way for modern Americans to ponder founder’s complex constitutional legacy is to think about the text that these statesmen jointly created & the early glosses that they jointly applied to that text. That has been the aim of this book.”
“Adams, with his pedantic & pettifogging antiquarianism & instinct for capillaries, used historical argument, a precursor to Originalism”( ain’t that a mouthful)
My 2 cents: “ History is argument without end”
This book is a contrarian take on the origins, birth, and early implementation of the U.S. Constitution, focusing on particular key players (Washington, Hamilton, Madison, Marshall, Jefferson, Adams, & Jackson), motives, Scotus decisions, & text. The author disagrees with a number of historians.
There is much I like here, especially the thought provoking perspectives the author offers up on people and events. Unfortunately, there are also assertions I find to be exaggerations or misleading and a definitive case of presentism over slavery.
A few thought provokers:
(1) He argues the Articles of Confederation were a necessary interim step to the Constitution because independence from the British crown & Parliament created sovereign states in each colony. Jealous of this new found ‘power’ these colonies saw themselves as ‘independent states’ now and they put severe restraints on this new Confederation they created, thereby forcing it to go through a trial period of sorts to reveal its limitations, ultimately provoking need for the continental Constitutional convention.
(2) The real ‘father’ of the Constitution was Washington, not Madison or Hamilton. Why? (Washington never opened his mouth during the debates as he presided over proceedings.)The author says that by his acceptance to preside, Washington added his integrity, credibility, and gravitas and motivated many of the jealous state delegates to attend. “If the convention is worthy of Washington’s presence it must be important.” In addition, Washington was a proponent of a strong national government because of the need for national defense after his dismal experience during the revolutionary war where the Confederation Congress was impotent in helping the revolutionary cause.
(3) The explanation of Marbury v Madison is the first I’ve read that drove home the cleverness of Marshall. The concept of ‘judicial review’ was deeply rooted in the Constitution before this case (see Federalist (#78) and Marshall reached the right decision for the wrong reason. The law in question (Judiciary Act of 1801) tried to expand SCOTUS jurisdiction but the Constitution didn’t give Congress that power and thus was unconstitutional.
By claiming the Court did not have jurisdiction, he avoided an almost certain direct confrontation with President Jefferson which might have broken the young Court and Constitution. In the words of the author, “SCOTUS GAINED this power to declare acts unconstitutional by DENYING this power.” (🤪🤪🤪)
A few things I dislike:
(1) He states that Washington freed his slaves upon death but he actually freed only his long time valet. The rest of his slaves were not to be freed until Martha’s death but Martha freed them a year later anyway. Picky maybe, but the author makes a big deal about this when comparing Washington’s slave ownership to Jefferson and Madison’s. An example of presentism.
(2) The author really piles on the praise for George and Alexander and hammers Jefferson and Madison unmercifully: Washington (the Indispensable Man), Hamilton (Mr. Federalist) & Marshall (the Holy Spirit)are the heroes in this narrative. Jefferson is the Anti-Christ, Madison the intellectually brilliant turncoat (from Federalist to Anti-Federalist & Jefferson sycophant), and Adams the Constitutional village idiot (Alien & Seditions Acts). A bit too much for me but not without some connection with the truth.
(3) Author quote: “ Washington’s blunder in 1754 triggered the Seven Years War between Britain & France”: C’mon man, those 2 countries were at each other’s throats in N. America for decades before Washington’s unfortunate gaffe (killing French ambassador in an ambush)
There are more dislikes and likes as the above observations merely scratch the surface of what’s here and it is well worth a read (imo).
Other author quotes:
“The purpose of this book is to unite law and history to understand the past & evaluate it through historical and legal analysis.”
“One way for modern Americans to ponder founder’s complex constitutional legacy is to think about the text that these statesmen jointly created & the early glosses that they jointly applied to that text. That has been the aim of this book.”
“Adams, with his pedantic & pettifogging antiquarianism & instinct for capillaries, used historical argument, a precursor to Originalism”( ain’t that a mouthful)
My 2 cents: “ History is argument without end”
September 12, 2024
After hearing an interview the author did with Sharon McMahon on her podcast, I was so impressed I couldn’t wait to dive into this book. Admittedly, I was a bit daunted by the length and the subject matter and so decided to get the Audible version rather than the print. While this definitely required that I pay close attention and even pause from time to time to think more deeply about the points the author so brilliantly makes, I now want to reread it in print format. Simply put, this is a fascinating and extremely well researched work. The author does a great job of injecting humor and insuring that the text is understandable and concise. He often brings the points to their fuller conclusion based on events transpiring later in time that validated the wisdom - and error - of what the original framers put forth. This is a book I will be recommending and thinking about for some time to come.
July 9, 2022
Akhil Reed Amar’s “The Words That Made Us” is at its best when correcting mythic misunderstandings of Marbury, McCulloch, and other classics of high school U.S. history. Discussion of the Constitution as necessarily concise and the Founders’ intentions for ‘spirit of the law’ interpretations is particularly interesting in light of modern textualism. Unfortunately, I agree with other reviews that the book lacks an intuitive organization and consistent central argument. While Amar makes clear his intention to draw thematic parallels across decades and administrations, his comparisons often feel somewhat forced—his chosen claims overshadowing more important ones.
September 18, 2025
5 stars for any book that makes me feel this much love and awe for the law. The author dives deeply into the conversations happening in courtrooms and conventions in the lead up to the creation of the U.S. Constitution. A study more of the social genesis of ideas (and the political environments that spawn them) than the personalities who are credited with crafting them.
9/18/25 Update: upon re-read, still 5/5. A comprehensive legal history of the development of the US Constitution and personal history of those who synthesized its ideas and values.
9/18/25 Update: upon re-read, still 5/5. A comprehensive legal history of the development of the US Constitution and personal history of those who synthesized its ideas and values.
December 5, 2021
The author is ridiculously egotistical, which actually becomes less of an issue as the book goes in. What I’m struggling with is the high praise for Jackson. I could see it if the book were older, but it’s hard to separate his Indian policy from the rest of his CV. Entirely agree with the low ratings of Adams and Jefferson, the latter of whom I’ve always found robbed remarkably overrated.
October 6, 2025
Amar just published the second volume of his history of how Americans used the Constitution. It reminded me that I always intended to read this book, the first one in the trilogy. It came out in 2021.
The subtitle, "America's Constitutional Conversation, 1760-1840", is helpful. This is not merely a discussion of Supreme Court opinions. Amar is interested in how people used the idea of constitution in deciding how to rule America. He looks at political debates, newspaper wars, private letters, and diaries, as well as Court opinions.
He starts the story with "Writs of Assistance" case in Boston in 1760. It was the first formal challenge to the constitutional right of the King to take away traditional American rights. He traces the fundamental legal arguments arising from the onerous tariffs, the stamp act, the tea act, the Tea Party and ultimately the occupation of Boston.
He argues that the Boston lawyer James Otis is a wrongly forgotten hero of American constitutional rights. Amar enjoys getting into the intricacies of the issues. The Americans argued that the stamp act was unconstitutional under the unwritten English constitution because it was taxation without representation. Amar analyzes six arguments made by the British in opposition. He shows the weaknesses in each.
This is a book about individuals having arguments and Amar looks closely at the character, intelligence and intellectual honesty of the main actors. He is not shy about picking sides. He picks heroes, Hamilton, Washington, Chief Justice John Marshall and Justice Storey.
More entertainingly, he picks bad guys and calls them names.
"Thomas Jefferson lied more than most politicians. He lied to his friends. He lied to his constituents. He lied to Washington. He lied to himself."
John Adams memory was "unreliable and self-serving."
Madison "lived in his own constitutional fantasy world."
This is a big book, and Amar is very good at pointing out things that seem obvious, once he says them. He shows the irony that Jefferson and Madison, two aristocratic wealthy slave owners, were the leaders of the party that was considered the democratic party while Adams and Hamilton, both men from humble backgrounds who worked for a living, were considered leaders of the aristocratic party.
Amir focuses on the state conventions that adopted the Federal Constitution. He argues that the process was an unprecedented democratic process. He makes the point that it gave the Constitution very strong legitimacy in the early years.
The Civil War looms over the book. It is undeniable that slavery was the most important issue for the South. It dominated the drafting of the Constitution. When England outlawed slavery, the South became even more desperate to protect it. Amir shows how Southerners repeatedly tried to distort the constitution less slavery be imperiled. The book ends with Andrew Jackson, the President who was the most enthusiastic supporter of slavery up to that time.
This is a book supported by huge research. The footnotes are substantial. (It is a shame that publishers these days refuse to put this kind of meaty "footnotes" where they belong, at the foot of the page.) Amir uses the footnotes to settle academic arguments. He seems to have a feud with the noted American historian Jill Lepore. I counted at least four shots at her in the footnotes.
The writing style is conversational. Amir takes us into his confidence and tries to explain his points clearly. He does reach a bit far sometimes. Jefferson trying to line up some newspapers on his side was trying to create a "proto-Fox News Network." or the Justices in the famous Madison v. Marbury case were "like the cast in the modern sitcom Seinfeld.
This is a big (817 pages) meaty book full of interesting stuff. I am looking forward to reading the second volume.
The subtitle, "America's Constitutional Conversation, 1760-1840", is helpful. This is not merely a discussion of Supreme Court opinions. Amar is interested in how people used the idea of constitution in deciding how to rule America. He looks at political debates, newspaper wars, private letters, and diaries, as well as Court opinions.
He starts the story with "Writs of Assistance" case in Boston in 1760. It was the first formal challenge to the constitutional right of the King to take away traditional American rights. He traces the fundamental legal arguments arising from the onerous tariffs, the stamp act, the tea act, the Tea Party and ultimately the occupation of Boston.
He argues that the Boston lawyer James Otis is a wrongly forgotten hero of American constitutional rights. Amar enjoys getting into the intricacies of the issues. The Americans argued that the stamp act was unconstitutional under the unwritten English constitution because it was taxation without representation. Amar analyzes six arguments made by the British in opposition. He shows the weaknesses in each.
This is a book about individuals having arguments and Amar looks closely at the character, intelligence and intellectual honesty of the main actors. He is not shy about picking sides. He picks heroes, Hamilton, Washington, Chief Justice John Marshall and Justice Storey.
More entertainingly, he picks bad guys and calls them names.
"Thomas Jefferson lied more than most politicians. He lied to his friends. He lied to his constituents. He lied to Washington. He lied to himself."
John Adams memory was "unreliable and self-serving."
Madison "lived in his own constitutional fantasy world."
This is a big book, and Amar is very good at pointing out things that seem obvious, once he says them. He shows the irony that Jefferson and Madison, two aristocratic wealthy slave owners, were the leaders of the party that was considered the democratic party while Adams and Hamilton, both men from humble backgrounds who worked for a living, were considered leaders of the aristocratic party.
Amir focuses on the state conventions that adopted the Federal Constitution. He argues that the process was an unprecedented democratic process. He makes the point that it gave the Constitution very strong legitimacy in the early years.
The Civil War looms over the book. It is undeniable that slavery was the most important issue for the South. It dominated the drafting of the Constitution. When England outlawed slavery, the South became even more desperate to protect it. Amir shows how Southerners repeatedly tried to distort the constitution less slavery be imperiled. The book ends with Andrew Jackson, the President who was the most enthusiastic supporter of slavery up to that time.
This is a book supported by huge research. The footnotes are substantial. (It is a shame that publishers these days refuse to put this kind of meaty "footnotes" where they belong, at the foot of the page.) Amir uses the footnotes to settle academic arguments. He seems to have a feud with the noted American historian Jill Lepore. I counted at least four shots at her in the footnotes.
The writing style is conversational. Amir takes us into his confidence and tries to explain his points clearly. He does reach a bit far sometimes. Jefferson trying to line up some newspapers on his side was trying to create a "proto-Fox News Network." or the Justices in the famous Madison v. Marbury case were "like the cast in the modern sitcom Seinfeld.
This is a big (817 pages) meaty book full of interesting stuff. I am looking forward to reading the second volume.
October 16, 2025
Akihil Reed Amar’s 2020 work The Words That Made Us is a supremely ambitious survey of the national constitutional conversation from 1760-1840, a discussion that Amar believes established our American identity and hammered out the structure of our legal edifice. Amar argues, mostly persuasively, that the Constitution is largely Washington’s creation, and that its purpose was more deeply rooted in national security issues than many realize today.
Most of us learned that Madison was the father of the Constitution, but Professor Amar believes Washington was more important. Madison was the note-taker, and we hear the discussions from his perspective. Amar points out, though, that Washington’s agenda prevailed; whereas, Madison lost on several key points. Washington wanted a powerful chief executive, a Congress strong enough to call up and fund a military, and a robust authority to tax. He got these things. Madison, on the other hand, wanted proportional representation in the Senate as well as the House, and a Council of Revision to preview every new law. Unlike Washington, he did not get his way.
Madison, of course, was influential in the crucial Ratification process, but Amar believes Washington was more significant. He believes that Washington’s Submission Letter, printed in many newspapers along with the Constitution before citizens voted on ratification, was a powerful incentive for a “yes” vote in nearly every state. Additionally, although Madison contributed many letters to the Federalist Papers, Washington’s top general, Alexander Hamilton, wrote many more, and he addressed the topics that were most critical to Washington and many others at the time. These included vigorous preparations for national defense. Professor Amar believes that Washington, acting through Hamilton, orchestrated the successful ratification of the Constitution.
Because Washington was so instrumental in drafting and adopting the Constitution, the nation became, Amar argues, strongly nationalist with a powerful executive. Amar devotes many pages to the unsuccessful efforts of Madison, Jefferson, and (later) Calhoun to establish a state’s right to nullify national laws. He discusses a president’s right to fire cabinet members. He probes the roots of the Supreme Court’s power of judicial review which, he says, predates Marbury v. Madison. Finally, he scuttles the argument that states have a right to secession.
It’s refreshing to read a scholarly analysis of the Constitution that is realistic, historically based, and balanced. Amar does not shy away from the nation’s original sin of slavery, its incomplete actions to end it, and the compromises that protected it, but he does not use those events as a basis to de-legitimize our entire legal foundation. Ultimately, Amar believes, the United States has both a proud tradition as the world’s first and longest-lasting democracy, and a serious responsibility to live up to its creed.
Most of us learned that Madison was the father of the Constitution, but Professor Amar believes Washington was more important. Madison was the note-taker, and we hear the discussions from his perspective. Amar points out, though, that Washington’s agenda prevailed; whereas, Madison lost on several key points. Washington wanted a powerful chief executive, a Congress strong enough to call up and fund a military, and a robust authority to tax. He got these things. Madison, on the other hand, wanted proportional representation in the Senate as well as the House, and a Council of Revision to preview every new law. Unlike Washington, he did not get his way.
Madison, of course, was influential in the crucial Ratification process, but Amar believes Washington was more significant. He believes that Washington’s Submission Letter, printed in many newspapers along with the Constitution before citizens voted on ratification, was a powerful incentive for a “yes” vote in nearly every state. Additionally, although Madison contributed many letters to the Federalist Papers, Washington’s top general, Alexander Hamilton, wrote many more, and he addressed the topics that were most critical to Washington and many others at the time. These included vigorous preparations for national defense. Professor Amar believes that Washington, acting through Hamilton, orchestrated the successful ratification of the Constitution.
Because Washington was so instrumental in drafting and adopting the Constitution, the nation became, Amar argues, strongly nationalist with a powerful executive. Amar devotes many pages to the unsuccessful efforts of Madison, Jefferson, and (later) Calhoun to establish a state’s right to nullify national laws. He discusses a president’s right to fire cabinet members. He probes the roots of the Supreme Court’s power of judicial review which, he says, predates Marbury v. Madison. Finally, he scuttles the argument that states have a right to secession.
It’s refreshing to read a scholarly analysis of the Constitution that is realistic, historically based, and balanced. Amar does not shy away from the nation’s original sin of slavery, its incomplete actions to end it, and the compromises that protected it, but he does not use those events as a basis to de-legitimize our entire legal foundation. Ultimately, Amar believes, the United States has both a proud tradition as the world’s first and longest-lasting democracy, and a serious responsibility to live up to its creed.
July 11, 2024
This was a very interesting analysis of the creation of the United States centered around the public and private conversations of those who played major roles in its founding and their understanding of what the Constitution was. It is something of a populist book, suggesting that both the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution were written by the people because it was their elected representatives who did the actual writing. He also suggests that the early republic had the right men in the right places because of the wisdom of crowds and an understanding by the people of the needs at the moment.
Amar offers a lot of interesting insights and perspectives that go against the way I learned this history in school and in other books. For instance, Amar suggests that Jefferson gets too much credit for writing it because the 2nd Continental Congress did major revisions. He also suggests that Washington was the real father of the Constitution, not Madison, because the Constitutional Convention went with his preferences rather than Madison's. This is part of his overall tone, which gives us heroes (Washington, Hamilton and John Marshall) and not exactly villains, but maybe losers (Adams, Jefferson and Madison) who weren't as important because of serious character flaws.
He is very critical of the latter group - Adams because of his egocentrism and prickly personality, Madison and Jefferson because they seemed to become more attached to slavery as they got older, whereas Washington and Hamilton became more anti-slavery.
Another interesting argument, which I will certainly incorporate in my teaching, is that Federalist #10 was just not that important at the time. Instead, Federalists #3-9 take center stage when they make the geopolitical argument for a stronger union. Federalist #10 was Madison indulging himself in explaining one of his big concepts for the Constitution, but it was largely ignored at the time and only became important almost a century later.
The other perspective I was not expecting was putting John Marshall on center stage as a Founding Father. He is usually not in the first row of Founding Fathers, but Amar makes a very good case that he should be. He had massive influence both politically and legally in defining what the Constitution meant and therefore who Americans are as a people.
I really enjoyed the book. Having a lawyer writing legal history makes for a great analysis. My only reservation is that he has a very romantic view of the Constitution, the early republic and some of the Framers. This is not to say that he ignores slavery; it comes up often. But he often attributes that best motives to his favored characters, inferring their thinking on subjects with little evidence. But even with that, this is worth a read for anyone interested in American history or Constitutional Law, even at 700 pages.
Amar offers a lot of interesting insights and perspectives that go against the way I learned this history in school and in other books. For instance, Amar suggests that Jefferson gets too much credit for writing it because the 2nd Continental Congress did major revisions. He also suggests that Washington was the real father of the Constitution, not Madison, because the Constitutional Convention went with his preferences rather than Madison's. This is part of his overall tone, which gives us heroes (Washington, Hamilton and John Marshall) and not exactly villains, but maybe losers (Adams, Jefferson and Madison) who weren't as important because of serious character flaws.
He is very critical of the latter group - Adams because of his egocentrism and prickly personality, Madison and Jefferson because they seemed to become more attached to slavery as they got older, whereas Washington and Hamilton became more anti-slavery.
Another interesting argument, which I will certainly incorporate in my teaching, is that Federalist #10 was just not that important at the time. Instead, Federalists #3-9 take center stage when they make the geopolitical argument for a stronger union. Federalist #10 was Madison indulging himself in explaining one of his big concepts for the Constitution, but it was largely ignored at the time and only became important almost a century later.
The other perspective I was not expecting was putting John Marshall on center stage as a Founding Father. He is usually not in the first row of Founding Fathers, but Amar makes a very good case that he should be. He had massive influence both politically and legally in defining what the Constitution meant and therefore who Americans are as a people.
I really enjoyed the book. Having a lawyer writing legal history makes for a great analysis. My only reservation is that he has a very romantic view of the Constitution, the early republic and some of the Framers. This is not to say that he ignores slavery; it comes up often. But he often attributes that best motives to his favored characters, inferring their thinking on subjects with little evidence. But even with that, this is worth a read for anyone interested in American history or Constitutional Law, even at 700 pages.
November 12, 2021
For nearly 400 pages this was my #1 book of 2021…and then the author’s personal opinions and ego became overbearing. It reads like a university lecture—broken up into big chapters which are then broken into smaller sections—which is a great plus for a book on the history of American law. However that format also allows for colloquial interjections that a ‘normal’ history book would not. It is incredibly clear that Amar disdains Jefferson and Madison while worshiping Washington and Hamilton. (He is surprisingly bullish on Jackson in a weird penultimate chapter that doesn't seem to fit well into the narrative.)
“If Jefferson (or Madison) is not the father of the Declaration of Independence (or Constitution) as we are taught to believe, then…” is a line used over and over again. In the early sections it comes as part of a very well articulated discussion about the founding documents and the role many individuals played (as well as the American public) in promoting ideas that eventually found their way to Jefferson’s and Madison’s pens. However, many many pages after the timeline has surpassed 1776 and 1787 it becomes just another way to subtly dig Jefferson and Madison for not deserving the fame that the author thinks the public affords them.
I am not sure why a history book needs a personal addendum but the author’s huge ego is made clear in the final chapter. He rightly bashes the far-right and far-left but he also spends 20 pages reviewing his personal favorite highlights of a book that the reader has just spent 600 pages reading. Thank you for correctly shutting down the 1619 Project and Fox News pundits but it could have been done without the self-promotion (including pitching the next two books in what appears to be a series on constitutional history). It really felt like the book was rushed to publication and therefore the final sections became preachy and opinionated.
All that being said, it is incredibly easy to follow despite covering such a long time period and a myriad of legal issues. Everyone will learn something from diving into this subject and I do not regret it at all. The book is definitely worth it for anyone interested in the foundational documents and the early leaders of the three branches of US government.
“If Jefferson (or Madison) is not the father of the Declaration of Independence (or Constitution) as we are taught to believe, then…” is a line used over and over again. In the early sections it comes as part of a very well articulated discussion about the founding documents and the role many individuals played (as well as the American public) in promoting ideas that eventually found their way to Jefferson’s and Madison’s pens. However, many many pages after the timeline has surpassed 1776 and 1787 it becomes just another way to subtly dig Jefferson and Madison for not deserving the fame that the author thinks the public affords them.
I am not sure why a history book needs a personal addendum but the author’s huge ego is made clear in the final chapter. He rightly bashes the far-right and far-left but he also spends 20 pages reviewing his personal favorite highlights of a book that the reader has just spent 600 pages reading. Thank you for correctly shutting down the 1619 Project and Fox News pundits but it could have been done without the self-promotion (including pitching the next two books in what appears to be a series on constitutional history). It really felt like the book was rushed to publication and therefore the final sections became preachy and opinionated.
All that being said, it is incredibly easy to follow despite covering such a long time period and a myriad of legal issues. Everyone will learn something from diving into this subject and I do not regret it at all. The book is definitely worth it for anyone interested in the foundational documents and the early leaders of the three branches of US government.
January 23, 2023
I was not educated on American revolutionary history in my youth, thanks to living abroad at the time. As a Texan now well into his thirties, I picked up this book to fill in some of the glaring blanks in my history.
What a perfect book for that purpose! And just what a book on its own! I enjoyed every minute of “The Words That Made Us” (and there were many minutes, as it is not a short book).
I’ll start with what’s potentially -not- to like, so you can quickly move on your way if you are looking for something else:
- The book is long and nuanced, preferring to thoughtfully dive into meaningful subtleties that still impact our modern lives, instead of briskly moving from one decisive action point to the next.
- It is a story told -usually- but not -always- chronologically, leaping back and forth across history to make a constitutional point. This can make it a little hard to follow, but benefits for depth.
- It is unashamedly focused on the Constitution, and it strongly (and intentionally) prefers a legal lens to, say, a militaristic or diplomatic lens.
- As the author points out in the final chapter, this is a story almost exclusively about white men, with women and non whites in the periphery (though the looming constitutional reality of slavery always in the foreground, the elephant in the room). I eagerly look forward to his next book, “The Words That Made Us Equal.”
If those don’t scare you off, then this book offers a detailed and thoughtful intellectual treat, rich in purposeful storytelling. It was wonderful reading for a US history novice like myself, but I imagine for someone already familiar with the terrain, “The Words That Made Us” would add a layer of legal depth to an already well understood narrative.
What a perfect book for that purpose! And just what a book on its own! I enjoyed every minute of “The Words That Made Us” (and there were many minutes, as it is not a short book).
I’ll start with what’s potentially -not- to like, so you can quickly move on your way if you are looking for something else:
- The book is long and nuanced, preferring to thoughtfully dive into meaningful subtleties that still impact our modern lives, instead of briskly moving from one decisive action point to the next.
- It is a story told -usually- but not -always- chronologically, leaping back and forth across history to make a constitutional point. This can make it a little hard to follow, but benefits for depth.
- It is unashamedly focused on the Constitution, and it strongly (and intentionally) prefers a legal lens to, say, a militaristic or diplomatic lens.
- As the author points out in the final chapter, this is a story almost exclusively about white men, with women and non whites in the periphery (though the looming constitutional reality of slavery always in the foreground, the elephant in the room). I eagerly look forward to his next book, “The Words That Made Us Equal.”
If those don’t scare you off, then this book offers a detailed and thoughtful intellectual treat, rich in purposeful storytelling. It was wonderful reading for a US history novice like myself, but I imagine for someone already familiar with the terrain, “The Words That Made Us” would add a layer of legal depth to an already well understood narrative.
November 5, 2021
An interesting take on the early years of the American constitution. Amar does not rehash the actual constitutional convention debates and compromises, which have been well covered elsewhere, but focuses instead on the discussions in American courts and newspapers both during ratification and during the first 50 years after. He takes the view that Washington was more influential than anyone else on the form the Constitution took, both because he presided over the convention (lending it his prestige and also embodying what its president would be) and because he made his views and opinions known in private letters to his friends who were part of the proceedings.
He is refreshingly un-reverent towards Adams, Madison, and Jefferson. My favorite of his formulations is that Jefferson's sometimes wooly or seditious thinking was thankfully offset by his basic hypocrisy, preventing him from putting his thinking into action once he moved into a position with the power to do so.
The section on the Jackson presidency had the most material that was new to me. Because John Marshall served as chief justice into the 1830s, constitutional law was taking form with court decisions he led, and the interaction of the last of the founding generation with the first president of the next generation war interesting to learn about.
His last section specifies the scholarship he is either challenging or elevating in each section of the book, which made me want to go back and read it again. The good news is two more volumes are planned along the same lines, covering 1840- 1920 and 1920-2000 - equally tumultuous periods of conversation about the Constitution. I can't wait!
He is refreshingly un-reverent towards Adams, Madison, and Jefferson. My favorite of his formulations is that Jefferson's sometimes wooly or seditious thinking was thankfully offset by his basic hypocrisy, preventing him from putting his thinking into action once he moved into a position with the power to do so.
The section on the Jackson presidency had the most material that was new to me. Because John Marshall served as chief justice into the 1830s, constitutional law was taking form with court decisions he led, and the interaction of the last of the founding generation with the first president of the next generation war interesting to learn about.
His last section specifies the scholarship he is either challenging or elevating in each section of the book, which made me want to go back and read it again. The good news is two more volumes are planned along the same lines, covering 1840- 1920 and 1920-2000 - equally tumultuous periods of conversation about the Constitution. I can't wait!
August 28, 2022
I had the good fortune to pick up The Words That Made Us this summer ahead of beginning my first year of law school. As a lifelong fan of American history and someone just beginning my formal study of the law, I found this book to be an absolute masterpiece, weaving together an historic and legal narrative of the founding of the republic. The Words That Made Us provides a gripping and novel analysis of the constitutional conversation that took place in the early years of the United States and how this conversation impacted the development of the country's government. It brings to life the original cast of characters in the American saga - from those occupying the highest positions of power to the average citizen - tracing the various threads and highlighting the significance of the dialogue between these parties. The book leaves the reader with not only a better understanding of the nation's past but a strong sense of the role conversation continues to occupy in the unfolding of the American story up to the present day. The Words That Made Us was my first real dive into constitutional history and law and has already motivated my purchase of half a dozen more books on the subjects. As I learn more, there's no doubt that this book will be foundational in shaping my view of the American project and am grateful to have read this so early in my legal journey. A fantastic book, guaranteed to be a seminal text in American legal and historic scholarship, I can't recommend this book strongly enough.
May 12, 2022
This is one of the best books I can remember reading about America’s constitutional history. As Amar explains in the book, lawyers don’t do a very good job with history, and historians often don’t understand the law well enough to explain it. In this book, Amar seeks to overcome those shortcomings, and he does an amazing job. He examines America’s “constitutional conversation” beginning well before the revolution or the constitutional convention. This conversation is more than just what government officials said and did – it includes newspapers and letters and town meetings and even mob action.
The best part of the book is that he explains the great constitutional controversies as a historian does, then explains the law as a lawyer does, then explains who was right, who was wrong, and why. I have never read a book that does this so well. He also does a wonderful job of bringing the main characters to life, explaining what they believed and why. Amar isn’t shy about his opinions regarding these people, but he gives ample evidence and interpretation to support his opinions. As in most honest history of the period, Washington comes out looking like a hero and Jefferson comes out looking like Jefferson.
This book is engaging and well-researched and very convincing. I loved it.
The best part of the book is that he explains the great constitutional controversies as a historian does, then explains the law as a lawyer does, then explains who was right, who was wrong, and why. I have never read a book that does this so well. He also does a wonderful job of bringing the main characters to life, explaining what they believed and why. Amar isn’t shy about his opinions regarding these people, but he gives ample evidence and interpretation to support his opinions. As in most honest history of the period, Washington comes out looking like a hero and Jefferson comes out looking like Jefferson.
This book is engaging and well-researched and very convincing. I loved it.
December 17, 2022
A comprehensive and detailed look at the writers and words that formed our nation and the spirit of the people. For the casual history lover/reader (like I consider myself), I found it a little dry at times. But I believe that can happen with the sheer volume of facts and divvying up the focus among a number of important people, and then delving into the people connected to them / those responsible for shaping them, which in turn influenced the molding of our country.
This year I also read Alexander Hamilton and John Adams, so it was interesting to me to see the overlap of facts and compare the interpretations. I actually found them largely aligned; I didn't find Chernow's biography to be as unabashedly adoring as Amar seems to have found it, or at least the things specifically commented on in this book.
And for me personally, the most interesting parts of this book were the final chapters which talked about the end and legacy of each of the key historical figures and gave Amar's educated opinion on them. I also loved that he shared the two projects in the works ...Equal and ... Modern, which sound like great collections already and I will be sure to read them when they're finished!
This year I also read Alexander Hamilton and John Adams, so it was interesting to me to see the overlap of facts and compare the interpretations. I actually found them largely aligned; I didn't find Chernow's biography to be as unabashedly adoring as Amar seems to have found it, or at least the things specifically commented on in this book.
And for me personally, the most interesting parts of this book were the final chapters which talked about the end and legacy of each of the key historical figures and gave Amar's educated opinion on them. I also loved that he shared the two projects in the works ...Equal and ... Modern, which sound like great collections already and I will be sure to read them when they're finished!
July 21, 2023
I waffled between a 4 star and a 5 star review. I agree with many of the criticisms suggesting there is a little bit too much of the author in the book. But he is a professor at a Big Time Law School and that kind of comes with the territory. There also is a bit too much criticism of Jefferson and Madison, although there's much to criticize there. And while I love George W., it is interesting to see the argument he was truly the driving force behind the Constitution. Interesting and ultimately pretty persuasive. All that being said and done, this is a really interesting book that discusses the ways in which ordinary citizens as well as the elite thought hard and debated openly about the kind of society in which they wanted to live and the rules that would create this society. It wasn't just the Founding Fathers. It was a much broader conversation, as the author says. Those who love to hate on America and tear down those who created the society and the legal structure from which we all benefit so much probably will hate on this book. Those of us who love this country, our Constitution, and revere our flawed but still great Founding Fathers and the very mature society in which they operated will find a lot to enjoy in this book. Well worth the read.
October 22, 2021
This is a superb addition to Prof. Amar’s extensive coverage of our country’s founding document of our legal/political discourse and life. In it, he makes a number of reappraisals of the founders: Washington, if possible, is more important than he is generally thought to have been. His partnership with Hamilton, forged in the revolutionary war, was extremely important to Washington as he took precedent-setting steps to implement the new law of the land. Madison, for all his reputation as the “father of the constitution,” is shown to be a southern partisan who took liberties interpreting the document to advantage the slave states in the first decades. A contribution to constitutional scholarship is Prof Amar’s treatment of the “conversation” during its first fifty years of what the document meant to those engaged, and how it should be interpreted. It is a conversation that continues, perhaps more raucously than ever, to the present day. This book’s groundedness in our history helps to put the arguments, then and now, in a perspective that makes for a deeper understanding of the document that ideally, will enable us to create a more perfect union.
May 29, 2023
The Words That Made Us is a comprehensive, easy-to-read, and absolutely fascinating book on the making of America. America's story, how we came into being and the cast of characters who both took inspiration from ordinary Americans and led the revolution in democracy, has not been told like this in a very long time.
The gripping stories will help any American understand the Constitution and its continued relevance in modern America. In all the best ways, the text reads like a novel — engaging characters, deep anecdotes, and events portrayed in a logical, well-thought-out manner. I could not put this book down. Professor Amar does a brilliant job of describing colonial-era America in language we can all understand, providing us not just a peek into the room where it happened, but a perspective into the minds of the founding generation whose actions shaped the nation we inhabit.
As Professor Amar discusses, very few historians take up legal history and very few lawyers are historians. This book spans both genres without sacrificing the detail and form we expect from specialists in either field. I highly recommend this important book and look forward to the next installment.
The gripping stories will help any American understand the Constitution and its continued relevance in modern America. In all the best ways, the text reads like a novel — engaging characters, deep anecdotes, and events portrayed in a logical, well-thought-out manner. I could not put this book down. Professor Amar does a brilliant job of describing colonial-era America in language we can all understand, providing us not just a peek into the room where it happened, but a perspective into the minds of the founding generation whose actions shaped the nation we inhabit.
As Professor Amar discusses, very few historians take up legal history and very few lawyers are historians. This book spans both genres without sacrificing the detail and form we expect from specialists in either field. I highly recommend this important book and look forward to the next installment.
December 7, 2024
For a legal history of the development of American government this is surprisingly readable. In some ways, his colloquialisms may not lead this book to become a classic of history ("America 2.0, frenemies, ditto" all sound dated already). Nevertheless, Amar does well to engage the reader with dynamic characters and a narrative tapestry that threads together many elements from the Colonial period until the Antebellum era.
Amar has his heroes: Washington, Hamilton, Marshall, and (surprisingly) Jackson. I appreciate that each is given a fair treatment with both flaws and strengths exposed to posterity. Amar examines the historiography that long has influenced how these and other figures were remembered leading to fair criticism of Adams, Jefferson, and Madison.
I do think that the author has a framework that can be somewhat limited to constitutional theory and can lack the significance of political maneuvering. For example he unjustly critiques Henry Clay's ability to find compromises that saved (or at least postponed) the nation from disunion.
Overall, it's a wonderful read and I'm sure I'll revisit it again one day and I look forward to the sequel(s).
Amar has his heroes: Washington, Hamilton, Marshall, and (surprisingly) Jackson. I appreciate that each is given a fair treatment with both flaws and strengths exposed to posterity. Amar examines the historiography that long has influenced how these and other figures were remembered leading to fair criticism of Adams, Jefferson, and Madison.
I do think that the author has a framework that can be somewhat limited to constitutional theory and can lack the significance of political maneuvering. For example he unjustly critiques Henry Clay's ability to find compromises that saved (or at least postponed) the nation from disunion.
Overall, it's a wonderful read and I'm sure I'll revisit it again one day and I look forward to the sequel(s).
February 28, 2025
This book is fascinating. I didn’t know what to expect when I first bought it, but it completely blew away my expectations. It starts off in 1760 and does an amazing job tying in legal theory with historical context in an easily digestible manner throughout the book. The title “Americas Constitutional Conversation” is exactly that. From the Declaration of Independence to the ratifying conventions to the Constitution, the author emphasizes that all of “US” had something to say in these documents. The notion of one sole author being the “father” of the Declaration or Constitution can be debated. The American virtue of free speech allowed for Jefferson and Madison to be more curators of a totality of the ideas being disseminated throughout the colonies. The book also does not shy away from giving due praise as well as due critique of our founding fathers. The book highlights the virtuous highs of our Founding Fathers as well the very human lows and contradictions of the very same men. Ultimately, we the people were always and have always been the authors of this Constitutional experiment.
August 15, 2025
As a proud American, I thought I knew our Constitution well. This book quickly proved otherwise.
I hadn't realized how fundamental the Constitution and its surrounding debates were in crafting the unique American identity. I especially appreciated how in-depth this book went into the timeline from Otis's writs of assistance to Madison's actual writing of the document and beyond, as previous historical books and textbooks I've read on this period failed to smoothly connect each major event. That being said, it is quite a hefty read, but I do encourage reading it in full thanks to the frequent references in later sections.
I was especially challenged by the last chapter on Jackson, as Amar's argument differed from any other I had previously heard. It was surprising to read a description of America's votes for Jackson as "once again vot[ing] for George Washington," and even more surprising to finish the book and realize that I now agreed with him.
If you are looking for a refresher on the importance of the Constitution, this is not your book. But, if you want a precise cause-and-effect progression of what inspired America's most important document, you've found it.
I hadn't realized how fundamental the Constitution and its surrounding debates were in crafting the unique American identity. I especially appreciated how in-depth this book went into the timeline from Otis's writs of assistance to Madison's actual writing of the document and beyond, as previous historical books and textbooks I've read on this period failed to smoothly connect each major event. That being said, it is quite a hefty read, but I do encourage reading it in full thanks to the frequent references in later sections.
I was especially challenged by the last chapter on Jackson, as Amar's argument differed from any other I had previously heard. It was surprising to read a description of America's votes for Jackson as "once again vot[ing] for George Washington," and even more surprising to finish the book and realize that I now agreed with him.
If you are looking for a refresher on the importance of the Constitution, this is not your book. But, if you want a precise cause-and-effect progression of what inspired America's most important document, you've found it.
October 9, 2021
The sub-title of this book tells more than the title itself. The Constitution didn't spring fully-formed from the collective minds in Philadelphia during the Constitutional Convention. Instead the core ideas in the final document (before amendments) derived from colonial experience accumulating since the years prior to the French and Indian War. And the subsequent amendments, primarily the Bill of Rights, also stemmed from those earlier days and compromises that had been made to facilitate the adoption of the basic document. The book goes on to deal with constitutional stresses between the northern and southern states, primarily regarding slavery, but in a more over-riding and perhaps contemporary discussion of the concept of nullification. Not a fast read, but a good one for anyone who wants perspective regarding the ongoing tensions regarding the issue of states' rights vs. the national interest.
August 4, 2025
My first book by Professor Amar - and he is hands down the BEST Modern Scholar on Constitutional law in the United States. I already ordered the sequel to this book, "Born Equal," and I am currently reading his "The Constitution Today." I admire how Professor Amar picks nuances in the Constitutional history of the US. For example, his argument that George Washington is the true father of the US Constitution, not Madison.
Also, how the Paxton's case in 1761 in combination with the Fall of Montreal by the British over the French were the first SEEDS of our Constitutional Republic. Also, how John Marshall and Joseph Story made a dynamic duo in the first four decades of our Republic, and how Andrew Jackson held the nation together through the nullification crisis and secession by South Carolina.
You will learn highly focused areas of our history through the legal lens of Professor Amar, and worth every minute of your concentration.
Also, how the Paxton's case in 1761 in combination with the Fall of Montreal by the British over the French were the first SEEDS of our Constitutional Republic. Also, how John Marshall and Joseph Story made a dynamic duo in the first four decades of our Republic, and how Andrew Jackson held the nation together through the nullification crisis and secession by South Carolina.
You will learn highly focused areas of our history through the legal lens of Professor Amar, and worth every minute of your concentration.
March 31, 2022
A fascinating journey through "America's Constitutional Conversation" from the time an American lawyer, James Otis, first argued that there existed a constitutional boundary on what Parliament could enact from the colonies through the presidency of Andrew Jackson, Amar introduces us to the issues and personalities that shaped the Constitution and how Americans saw it in the first of a projected three volumes.
A book for those interest in law or political history, no expertise is required. Amar's target is a general audience. As always with Amar, there are some points that may not resonate. But by and large, he elucidates the big themes in an engaging manner that both informs and entertains.
A book for those interest in law or political history, no expertise is required. Amar's target is a general audience. As always with Amar, there are some points that may not resonate. But by and large, he elucidates the big themes in an engaging manner that both informs and entertains.
December 5, 2022
I would have given this book 4.5 stars, but that was not a choice so I decided to go up, not down.
It really is a magnificent work. I learned so much about the Founders that I never knew and had to re-evaluate many. I was able to see the complexity of Constitutional issues in a new way and appreciated seeing the situation as the Founders saw it, not as we see it with perfect hindsight. I like that the author challenges the reader to find mistakes. I also liked the way he translated things into contemporary English.
The deficits were simply the size and prolixity. Sometimes the author went too deep into the weeds for my liking. And I have no way to know if his portrayals are accurate. But still, very well worth the time.
It really is a magnificent work. I learned so much about the Founders that I never knew and had to re-evaluate many. I was able to see the complexity of Constitutional issues in a new way and appreciated seeing the situation as the Founders saw it, not as we see it with perfect hindsight. I like that the author challenges the reader to find mistakes. I also liked the way he translated things into contemporary English.
The deficits were simply the size and prolixity. Sometimes the author went too deep into the weeds for my liking. And I have no way to know if his portrayals are accurate. But still, very well worth the time.
September 8, 2025
I was a history major in college and spent some time on U.S. constitutional history (as well as English constitutional history). Since that time, a good bit of my reading has been on that history. Professor Amar goes over the subject offering an nontraditional spin on the American constitutional story, starting earlier than most other offerings and carrying forward to offer a perspective that I had not previously thought about. Amar's narrative is about a sophisticated American constitution, with emphasis on law (Amar is a law professor) to tell a story that most other authors missed. Perhaps Amar's story is not the whole story, but it is a good, well-crafted story based on many sources and emphases that others have missed.
Highly recommended.
Highly recommended.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 72 reviews