Plain, Honest Men: The Making of the American Constitution

by Richard Beeman

In May 1787, in an atmosphere of crisis, delegates met in Philadelphia to design a radically new form of government. Distinguished historian Richard Beeman captures as never before the dynamic of the debate and the characters of the men who labored that historic summer. Virtually all of the issues in dispute—the extent of presidential power, the nature of federalism, and, most explosive of all, the role of slavery—have continued to provoke conflict throughout our nation's history. This unprecedented book takes readers behind the scenes to show how the world's most enduring constitution was forged through conflict, compromise, and fragile consensus. As Gouverneur Morris, delegate of Pennsylvania, "While some have boasted it as a work from Heaven, others have given it a less righteous origin. I have many reasons to believe that it is the work of plain, honest men."

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

544 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 2009

About the author

Richard Roy Beeman was an American historian and biographer specializing in the American Revolution. Born in Seattle, he published multiple books, and was the John Walsh Centennial Professor of History at the University of Pennsylvania.

Reviews

[Brian · Rating 5 out of 5]

The popular view of the Constitution is pretty well expressed by John Milton, and I'll quote it here:

God, from the Mount of Sinai, whose gray top shall tremble, He descending, will Himself, in thunder, lightning, and loud trumpets' sound, ordain them laws.
-Paradise Lost

Well, G-d did it through the intermediaries of the founding fathers, but most often that's a detail that's glossed over. The Constitution, in American political thought, is Holy Writ. The truth is far more interesting and messy, however, as it often is.

Richard Beeman takes an look at the Constitutional Convention, primarily through the notes of James Madison. William Jackson, the original secretary for the convention, took only perfunctory notes and completely failed to organize them in any sort of useful fashion, so without the official record history is left to rely on the delegates own documents--and on Madison's own extensive notes.

Plain, Honest Men is the tale of how 55 men got together in a hot, stuffy building in Philadelphia and, over the course of four months, hammered together what would become the Constitution of the United States of America. During that time, they dealt with tons of problems we're still grappling with now. How powerful should the president be? How removed from the people should the higher offices of the government be? What are the proper powers of Congress, and of the federal government, and what should be left to the states?

The most interesting thing to me, I think, was the diversity of viewpoints and how the arguments went. Beeman points out how important it was that the delegates agreed that votes taken during the course of the debating would not be binding, and you can see how important that was pretty quickly. There were times when the delegates would take up a proposal, vote it down, take up a counterproposal, vote that down, then take up the first proposal again and pass it, all in the same day. And then there were the times the debates got really acrimonious, like over the fate of slavery or the balance between whether the United States would be a government of the states or of the people.

One thing that really stands out is how suspicious the founding fathers were of democracy. Several of them would settle for nothing less than a national government that would govern only the states, leaving the governing of the people to the states they lived in, and there was a continual tension between state power and democratic power. Despite the ideals of freedom and the Enlightenment, many of them had a very dim view of the political acumen of the average person and their ability to participate in the political process. I leave the question of their accuracy in this view as an exercise for the reader.

I will say this--the description of the debates over slavery makes the founding fathers look completely horrible. The worst of them were blatant racists who argued that not only was slavery economically necessary for the South, but that it was better for the slaves because at least they weren't in Africa anymore. Even the ones who thought slavery was a terrible evil would probably be characterized as white nationalists. They may have thought slavery was injurious to freedom and corrupting to any society that practised it, but they didn't think black people were equal to white people and would have been baffled at the idea of social and legal equality in American society for former slaves. The biggest takeaway I had, though, was that for most of the debate the only important part for the delegates was their states' economic interests. The moral dimension was barely even mentioned.

Yeah, yeah, different times, but the result was decades of acrimony, a war that killed more people than existed in any single state at the time of the Constitution's adoption, and remaining racism that still plagues American society today. For all their high-minded talk about freedom and individual liberty, the delegates spectacularly failed to deal with its practical applications in their own society.

There were some funny parts, like when the delegates were arguing about how long the president should serve for. One proposal was for seven years, with the option for the legislature to re-elect them, but some other delegates started worrying that this would make the president too dependent on Congress. One delegate proposed eleven years, another one proposed fifteen, and one proposed twenty with the saying, "this is the medium life of princes," i.e., that they were on the path to making the president an elected king anyway, so they might as well just say it.

The fact that they ignored basically every single speech and suggestion Benjamin Franklin made was pretty comical as well.

The book is quite biographical, providing a huge amount of information on many of the delegates and their possible reasons for voting and arguing as they did. It does fall into, in my mind, one of the problems of biographies because of that, often introducing speculation with phrases like "[delegate] may have considered" or "[delegate] perhaps must have been thinking of" and the like, all of which popped out of the page every time they appeared to me. It does give a good insight into the humanity of the founding fathers, though.

This took me a while to get through all out of proportion to its length, but if you're at all interested in the development of American government it's an excellent read. Highly recommended.

[Matt · Rating 2 out of 5]

I got tired of reading this right about the time the delegates got tired of being at the Constitutional Convention.

[Piker7977 · Rating 5 out of 5]

Beeman's Plain, Honest Men: The Making of the American Constitution is a superb example of readable and informative history. He does three things particularly well: Beeman provides effective sketches of the delegates who attended the Constitutional Convention, describes the ideas and beliefs associated with the debates and arguments, and crafts a good narrative. God bless you, sir!

The reader of Plain, Honest Men will grasp the intellectual and biographical diversity that was present in Philadelphia in the summer of 1787. What a crew! To name a few, there was nerdy James Madison, always prepared and ever worried. There was Gouverneur Morris, the aristocratic and anti-democratic ladies man representing Pennsylvania who, despite his leanings, likely drafted the magic words "We the people." How about the crusty and cantankerous Elbridge Gerry from Massachusetts? Or the ancient, respected, but probably past his prime, Benjamin Franklin? What did you think about that smart-ass Alexander Hamilton? Let's not forget the man: THE George Washington who did not contribute much in the way of speeches, ideas, or arguments, but his presence gave the whole shebang an element of legitimacy. When they were arguing over what a president was going to be, you can imagine a couple of awkward glances in his direction. Beeman provides just enough context behind the main players to shed light on how each person and state approached the Convention.

As one cruises through the pages, you also encounter the debates and arguments along with the subsequent votes. These is great stuff. It's too easy to describe these dudes as the best and the brightest or, worse yet, think that the Constitution was a product of some divine intervention. Bullshit! It was the product of ideas clashing against one another delivered by bright folks with hindered foresight and glaring flaws. He also illustrates the uglier topics that shroud this era in controversy while doing his best to practice detachment and present the historical facts in an objective manner that lets the subjects speak for themselves. This was greatly appreciated.

By the time I got to the final draft before it was sent on to Continental Congress, I was feeling half-claustrophobic imagining the sustained arguments in the Pennsylvania State House for roughly four months. A reader needs a little fresh air! But that's not any fault of the book. It's a testament to the writing and organization style of Beeman. To have your mind engage nonfiction like a novel can be a good thing!

The bookshelves in bookstores and the sponsored algorithms on Amazon often showcase and promote ghostwritten partisan slop or incoherent academic publications that do absolutely no good for the study of history. It's books like Plain, Honest Men that deliver the goods in an objective manner that whet one's historical curiosity. We need readable histories. They make it fun for the enthusiast, academic or layman. So, let's hope aspiring historians read books like this and allow themselves to become influenced. I strongly believe that a more learned public will be fostered out of digesting readable histories similar to this fine book.

[Mary · Rating 1 out of 5]

Ugh, why is it that when we write American History it is so boring. I felt like I was living the Constitution Convention in real time. Well, at least it's good to know that we were screwed up, self interested and disagreeable from the beginning, but at least these guys could get something done.

[Todd Martin · Rating 4 out of 5]

You’ve probably heard the quote "Laws are like sausages. It's better not to see them being made." Well … nothing could be further from the truth when it comes to the U.S. Constitution which was written during the Constitutional Convention that took place from May 25 to September 17, 1787 in Philadelphia Pennsylvania.

Plain, Honest Men: The Making of the American Constitution provides a daily account of the …. I’ll call them ‘discussions’ although they often resembled bitter, contentious debates, that occurred during the Convention resulting in the union of the thirteen states. Significant tensions were present from the beginning. The most notable being:
- Those who favored a strong federal government (the nationalists) vs those who favored state sovereignty
- Small states who feared losing their autonomy vs large states
- The northern states vs the slave-holding southern states
- Separation of powers and the power vested in the unitary executive
- Whether the executive would be a single person or a group of people
- How much democracy should be granted to the people

Progress was slow and the process nearly broke down on several occasions, but the members understood the importance of the effort and were each willing to make substantial compromises in order to accomplish their goal.

Major compromises included:
- The apportionment of congressional representation (based on population in the House and equal representation in the Senate)
- The repugnant three-fifths ratio which apportioned seats in the House of Representatives on the basis of a state's free population plus three-fifths of its slave population
- The process for confirming federal judges (the president should choose judges and the Senate confirm them)

As they say … the rest is history. The Convention concluded on September 17, 1787 with the signing of the new U.S. Constitution and it was subsequently ratified by the states.

As to the book … though quite long, I thought it was fascinating. It does an excellent job illustrating how men of differing backgrounds and priorities were able to come together to accomplish a monumental feat … something sorely lacking in today’s polarized political atmosphere.

One thing that struck me was how many of the arguments the framers were having in 1787 are ones that are still going on today.
- How much power should be afforded the president
- What offenses rise to the level of impeachment
- Whether it still makes sense for small states representing a small fraction of the country’s population to hold so much sway in the Senate
- Whether the electoral college is relevant
- The power of the federal government vs state rights
- Whether a wall of separation exists between church and state
So much has changed in the intervening 233 years and yet, some things haven’t changed at all.

Finally, there are those who believe in an ‘originalist’ interpretation of the constitution, which asserts that all statements in the constitution must be interpreted based on the original understanding of the authors or the people at the time it was ratified. The reality is that none of the framers was entirely happy with the constitution and as such numerous interpretations of the document existed. It should therefore come as absolutely no surprise that originalists more often than not interpret the constitution in a way that coincides more precisely with their personal ideology than with any originalist intent.

[Mark Fallon · Rating 5 out of 5]

“While some have boasted it (the Constitution) as a work from Heaven, others have given it a less righteous origin. I have many reasons to believe that it is the work of plain, honest men.” – Gouverneur Morris, delegate to the 1787 Constitutional Convention

This week, like many other weeks for the last 223 years, people are making arguments before the Supreme Court about whether a law is constitutional. In other words – is the law in agreement with the intent of the United States Constitution? Of course, people have argued over what was the intent of the Constitution since it was ratified. And that includes disagreements among the men who drafted the document.

In "Plain, Honest Men: The Making of the American Constitution", Richard Beeman tells what took place during the Constitutional Convention in 1787. Pledged to secrecy, and meeting behind closed doors in the Pennsylvania State House, men from 12 of the 13 states (Rhode Island refused to participate) worked to draft a better framework for the young country. The odds of a positive outcome were never very high.

Using notes and speeches kept by some of the attendees, Beeman is able to reconstruct many of the debates that took place. The conflicts between northern and southern states, as well as the competing interests of larger and smaller states, meant compromise was needed at every turn. Some compromises helped create some amazing developments, like the separation of powers among the three branches. Other compromises meant securing the dubious legacy of slavery.

Over the next few months, we’ll hear from pundits and politicians about what “the framers of the Constitution had in mind” when it comes to the rights and responsibilities of American citizens and their government. Beeman’s work demonstrates that the framers were never of one mind on most issues. However, they did believe in the power of debate and compromise to effect lasting change. As a result, they created one of the most powerful and influential constitutions ever written.

"Plain, Honest Men" is the type of book that inspired my love of history. I highly recommend reading it.

[Diana · Rating 2 out of 5]

Although the topic is good, the text seems somewhat longer than truly necessary. The writing style is fair, if not truly engaging. I did enjoy a lot of the information, such as the wrangling over certain details, the facts underlying decisions regarding the Connecticut Compromise, the fugitive slave clause, etc. I was unaware of the arguments surrounding representation in Congress and the nature of the executive as well, which was intriguing. Not a bad read, but somewhat pedantic.

[Dan · Rating 5 out of 5]

A great and informative read on the founding fathers and the arduous process of constructing the American constitution.

A must read for those that read half baked 'history books' like Zinn's book or other persons proclaiming systematic racism. Imperfect men (as we all are) attempting to achieve something towards good. Did they succeed? Partially. America has sure survived trials and tribulations far better than many other countries.

[Frank Stein · Rating 5 out of 5]

As the title would indicate, this is an unheroic view of the drafting of the U.S. Constitution. Not that the author tries to cut down the fifty-five delegates of the 1787 Constitutional Convention to size, or denigrate their accomplishments. Quite the opposite. He aims to show them as the delegate Gouvernor Morris saw them, "plain, honest men" who somehow created something extraordinary. The author, a professor at the University of Pennsylvania, even admits that he hopes the book will inspire some patriotism. It does.

Although there are lots of great books on the ideas behind the Constitution, this is the best narrative of the five months in Philadelphia when it actually was written. A narrative accounts offers insights that other accounts don't. It demonstrates the importance of things like the dinner at Benjamin Franklin's house on May 16, where the Virginians and Pennsylvanians conferred on their plans for a strong national government, and where the Pennsylvanians Gouvernor Morris and James Wilson (both proteges of the financier Robert Morris) helped shape the earliest ideas of a strong presidency. It also emphasizes the importance of such places as Mary House's Boardinghouse, one block from Independence Hall, where Mary's daughter's Virginia husband attracted James Madison and Edmund Randolph, as well as other luminaries such as John Dickinson and George Reed of Delaware, and Charles Pinckney of South Carolina. These social gatherings were as essential to working out the Constitution as the work at Independence Hall from 10 to 3 Monday through Saturday.

The book also highlights the importance of the innumerable committees the Convention appointed to settle issues they couldn't settle in the convention. From the "Committee of the Whole House," whose head, the simultaneous head of the Confederation Congress, Nathaniel Gorham of Massachusetts (who also came up with the idea of "advise and consent" for appointments), allowed the Convention to work informally in the first month; to the Committee on Detail, where Edmund Randolph wrote most of the actual text of the Constitution; to the "Grand Committee," which reported the so-called Connecticut Compromise of two houses with the Senate to be selected by the states; to the Committee of Postponed Parts, which added up to the ideas of general bankruptcy laws and the inability of Congress members to serve in office; and finally to the Committee on Style, where Gourvernor Morris added the preamble and shrank "We the People of" the listed states, to "We the People of the United States." Often, as in the Committee on Style's report, the Convention accepted them out of pure weariness.

One of the big revelations from this narrative is just how important the debate on the presidency was to the whole preceding. The delegates debated it so long not because they thought the presidency the most essential part of the government, but just because they all had so little idea of what it should be. At the beginning, the states by 8 to 2 endorsed James Madison's vision that the Congress would elect the "Executive," and they generally agreed he would serve for seven years. Only James Wilson advocated direct election by the people. But the question of reelection divided the delegates, and when the group couldn't settle on whether or not the president should serve more than a single seven-year term, voting for and against at different times, and when James McClurg argued for a lifetime presidency, suddenly the delegates understood the dangers of a presidency dependent on Congress. Eventually, the delegates moved to James Wilson's electoral college compromise simply because they couldn't imagine any other way to keep the presidency reelectable and still not dependent on Congress or directly on the people.

So although other works may provide more depth about the ideas behind the Constitution, this is the best at the actual process, including all the picayune details that added up to a truly tremendous, and surprisingly lasting, achievement.

[Amy · Rating 4 out of 5]

A little dry, but overall, a fascinating look at the "players" and their meeting at the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia in 1787 where they developed the U.S. Constitution.

Some things that struck me as interesting in my reading:

I am not a huge fan of Ben Franklin, but his final speech, urging the delegates to put the need for a harmonious union above their own interests and ideologies, to check their egos at the door, in essence, marked a decisive moment in the process of the making of the Constitution. I think today's representatives (senate & congress) need to make use of this practice!

Not all of the delegates appointed came to serve.

I really liked James Wilson from Pennsylvania. He was the only member of the Convention who envisioned an American government and a president, much like we have today. Wilson also believed that the people should elect the president. When others disagreed, he developed the idea of an electoral college of sorts. People such as Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, Roger Sherman of Connecticut and Pierce Butler of South Carolina believed that ordinary citizens of America were too gullible to make an "informed" decision and that their votes could be too easily manipulated.

Part of the framework for the Constitution related to small states vs. large states and slave states vs. free states. For those who think that the issue of slavery didn't come up until the mid-1850's, think again! This was a huge issue in relation to the development of the constitution and the author has alluded to the fact that the Civil War came about because of some of the decisions made during this convention.

Rhode Island never participated in the development of the Constitution.

The whole argument of proportional vs. equal representation in congress was very interesting (p. 152+).

The one area where I don't completely agree with Wilson is in his development of the "three-fifths compromise" in regards to slaves (p.153+). The three-fifths compromise was not proposed (supposedly) because the delegates believed that African slaves were only 60 percent human. Rather, the fraction "three-fifths" was intended as a rough approximation of the measure of wealth that an individual slave contributed to the economy of his or her state. I believe slaves had a direct impact on the economy of the south. They should have been counted the same as other people.

The Founding Fathers failed to face up to the paradox of slavery within a constitutional system dedicated to securing the blessing of liberty. Some three-quarters of a century later, the new nation would pay heavily in blood and treasure to set things right.

Next, the discussion about whether or not to expand slavery into the Northwest Territory was also very interesting considering I currently life in that area.

I have to admit that I'm not all that interested in the development of the U.S. Supreme Court and it's interesting to note that this branch of the government took a backseat to the other branches in the development of a more perfect union. According to the book, few delegates felt as passionate about the character of the judicial branch of the government as they did about the need to protect their state interests in the contest for representation or about the prospects and perils of a strong chief executive (p. 236).

The "citizenship" requirements for serving in the house / senate was intriguing. John Rutledge of South Carolina believed that any member of Congress should reside at least 7 years in the state from which he was elected. Rutledge was convinced that "an emigrant from New England to South Carolina or Georgia would know little of its affairs and could not be supposed to acquire a thorough knowledge in less time (p. 281).

Gouverneur Morris of Pennsylvania tried to get the citizenship requirement raised to 14 years, but compromised by raising the requirement to 7 years for the House and 9 years for the Senate, provisions that remain in the Constitution to this day.

The reason that the president must be a natural born citizen was due to fears of the corrupting effects of European society.

George Mason of Virginia was insistent that the president operate in conjunction with a "council of state". Mason's idea was different that working with today's cabinet. He thought the men serving in "his" council would act as a check on presidential power, rather than as the direct agents of that power. This would not only be a check on a bad president, but be a relief to a good one. I sometimes wish we had this in effect today.

Veto power was very interesting (see pg. 341).

The whole discussion about the possible omission of a "Bill of Rights" was engaging. James Madison and Thomas Jefferson were good friends. However, when Thomas Jefferson -- still serving as ambassador in Paris -- received a copy of the Constitution along with a long letter from Madison some 3 months after the Convention adjourned, he found much to be unhappy about. Jefferson believed that the omission of a "Bill of Rights" was an appalling mistake.

One of the enduring lessons of the American Revolution was that in the absence of written constitutions laying out not only the powers that governments might exercise but also those they may not, liberty would always be endangered.

Perhaps the real reason for this omission were that the delegates were desperately weary and hot in the stuffy Assembly Room and profoundly anxious to avoid anything that would prolong the Convention.

There were lots of different committees dedicated to framing and developing the Constitution. There was a Committee of Detail -- the president would be elected by ballot by the legislature -- and a Committee of Style -- described the torturous path by which the framers decided that the president should be chosen by an electoral college.

Towards the end of the book, we hear from Benjamin Franklin, again. "You assemble a number of men to have the advantage of their joint wisdom, you inevitable assemble with those men all their prejudices, their passions, their errors of opinion, their local interests, and their selfish views. From such an assembly can a perfect production be expected?" (p. 360)

The delegates to the Philadelphia Convention confronted three (3) alternatives: to abolish the state governments and create a single consolidated government, to divide the country into "thirteen separate, independent commonwealths," or to create a "comprehensive Federal Republic."

The timeless Constitution and the living Constitution. Do we have this?

At the back of the book are two (2) of appendices.

Appendix #1 is a full list of the delegates to the Constitutional Convention of 1787. You will see that not all of the delegates actually signed the Constitution.

Appendix #2 is the Constitution.

[Jenn Palomino · Rating 4 out of 5]

I signed up for a Constitutional Literacy program through UVU and this was the first book of the reading list we were given in preparation. And honestly I loved it. It goes through that fateful summer in Philadelphia that brought us the constitution and I loved it. You also get a profile of the men involved and what their motivations were. There was a part that stood out to me that was along the lines of “even though the constitution wasn’t perfect, they set out to create a more perfect union” and I guess I just have hope, no matter how dwindling that someone in our government still believes in that despite how dystopian things are feeling as of late.

[Jacob Rollins · Rating 5 out of 5]

Great comprehensive work on the brilliance, the flaws, the inspirations, and the reproaches of the creation of The United States of America. Does an excellent job giving you in-depth detail without getting weighed down in the minutia of it all. Does well to honor the revolutionary aspects (creating a basis for “We the People” to have power) while also not shying away from the darker sides of this history (not letting all people be equal or have voice in its creation).

[Matt Davenport · Rating 5 out of 5]

An excellently written, comprehensive look at the events pertaining to the creation/ratification of the U.S. Constitution. Beeman provides a look at the years under the Articles of Confederation leading up to the Constitutional Convention of 1787, followed by an in-depth portrayal of every day of the Convention's debates, complete with details about all of the key figures' backgrounds, views, and contributions to the debates. Lastly, Beeman finishes with a look at how the Constitution was ratified and put into effect and the impact our first four Presidents had on the ensuing interpretation, notable among them Jefferson and Madison's debate over the perfect durability of the Constitution versus it's ultimate fallibility as society progresses.

This book fit in perfectly with the other books I've been reading this year, and added a great deal of new knowledge and nuance to my understanding on the founding of our government. Would recommend for everyone.

[Olivia Harston · Rating 1 out of 5]

this is an evil book

[Henry Demond · Rating 4 out of 5]

Hey, I’ve got a book for you. The next time Michael I-Couldn’t-Deceive-You Moore or Al Frankensenseless tells you the Founding Fathers were a bunch of Racist White Guys, you can throw this book at them. (Unless you have the Kindle version. Don’t throw your Kindle at Sen. Frankensenseless or he’ll steal it and hire a lawyer to somehow prove that it’s his along with 156 other Kindles. Then he’ll say something that’s not funny.)

I read this book about a year ago and now I roll my eyes every time I hear People of Prominence say that the Constitution is an old, tired, decrepit, worn-out piece of parchment that should be euthanized along with the Tea Party and Strom Thurmond and all the jokes they used to tell in Vaudeville. Richard Beeman’s Plain, Honest Men is a highly engaging book that looks at the Men and their Motives at the 1787 Constitutional Convention. These guys weren’t what the Lefties and the hirsute Mr. Stephanuppagus claim them to be on State-Sanctioned National TV (As an aside, when I see folly such as that, I think, My Word! You mean when I tell a Black Man that I believe in Debate in the Spirit of the Founding Fathers, said Black Man thinks I’m condoning a class of Dead Racists?)!

At some point, the four-month, un-catered extended Convention was deadlocked by a contingency of delegates from South Carolina. To break the deadlock, a fellow by the name of Roger Sherman offered what would soon be known as the Connecticut Compromise starring Roger Sherman. It was a provision to appease the smaller states, as they feared getting swallowed up like tiny Lichtenstein during one of Hitler’s midnight cravings for blue cheese. Property rights were very important to these folks (as they should be to us folks today), and the taxation and apportionment clauses focused on populations, not state land mass, per se. It seems either silly or complicated, but if you read the book, you’ll see how close to dis-Union the country came over this banal matter, and you’ll also realize that per the way the Sharper Knives in the Drawer arranged it, Slavery, though still an American institution, could only hang by a thread.

Did any of you know that Ben Franklin was an active Abolitionist? And no, that doesn’t mean he wanted to abolish competitor Almanack-writers, it means he ACTIVELY CALLED FOR THE ABOLITION OF SLAVERY, so much so that he went to the County Clerk’s Office and registered the name of his Dot-Org. There was another guy, by the name of Gouverneur Morris (The guy who first talked of “Plain, Honest Men”), from New York, who, when he wasn’t teasing the ladies with his false leg, was ACTIVELY CALLING FOR THE ABOLITION OF SLAVERY. The entire Virginia contingency, you know—Virginia—where there were plantations and such, were not as physically active as Morris or Franklin, but their delegation was comprised of cerebral philosophers and country lawyers and NARY A ONE OF THEM CONSIDERED SLAVERY A VIABLE OR DECENT INSTITUTION.

FOX News tele-journalist Chris Wallace apologized to Michele Bachmann for his dopey line of questioning to the Congresswoman and Presidential candidate from Minnesota during a 2011 campaign run. I think George Stephanuppagus owes me and about every US History Teacher in the Land an apology for such dopey and naïve assumptions about our Founding Fathers. Some unnamed opportunist started these Myths decades ago. The Drafting of the Constitution may not have been Cakes and Ale for All, but the perpetrated and perpetuated Myths should never linger as fobs of negativity in the American Psyche in perpetuity.

[Nolan · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is the kind of book that falls into one of two potential categories for most readers. It is either going to be a hard slog that you may or may not finish, or it will be a moderately to highly readable book about a piece of history you may not know much about. This one fell into that latter category for me. Since we are days away from the anniversary of the signing of the constitution, I felt this would be a good read. Besides which, it has been on my hard drive for years and years, and it felt good to finally unearth it and clear that up.

The author seems to have brought his receipts. In other words, his research seems plenteous and thorough. He provides you with a list of his sources in the back, and he uses a lot of primary and some secondary sources. While I don't claim to be an expert in the field of research or for that matter the US constitution, I feel certain the research on this is accurate and solid. That's important if you're going to read a book like this. The last thing you want is someone's political screed. In my case at least, I just want the data. Tell me what happened, tell me when it happened, if you must, give your interpretation of why it happened. But make sure that you mark your interpretation clearly as that. And above all, if you can make it happen, make it as readable as possible. This author passes all those tests.

You get a look at the constitutional convention that occurred roughly between May and September of 1787. In the early days of the convention, so few delegates showed up that there was no quorum to do business. Fortunately, that eventually changed. But there were some states whose delegates were chronically absent from the convention. One New Yorker showed up on the last day to simply sign the document and go back home. The one man who was constantly there was the man who would become the 1st president after the states adopted the constitution. George Washington agreed to serve as president of the committee. To the best of my memory, only on one occasion did he speak at all, and that was at the end of the convention when they were wrapping everything up. But his presence was enough. He was able to be the calm, unifying force that kept the delegates together even on those days when they were at the cusp of fisticuffs and who knows what else. If you read this, you will get a clear and solid view of the other men who were part of the constitutional convention. Not everyone gets the same number of pages, and that's a good thing. The book would have been too large to bind had the author approached it that way. But all the major players are in place, and you get an understanding of who they were and how they thought.

There was so much about the constitution I frankly didn't know. I thought I grew up at a time when they taught civics, but my woeful ignorance may mean that I have created a certain amount of mythology around the curriculum I grew up learning. That's a little scary. The author fascinated me with the stories about the debates as to what the chief executive position should look like. Many of those assembled at the convention wanted a chief executive who was comprised of several individuals from throughout the states. They really wanted the country governed by an executive committee. Ultimately, as you are aware, a single-executive decision carried the day. But other thorny issues saw lots of debate. One of the largest debates was in how to elect that chief executive. Some wanted it done by legislators. Others said the people should do it. The small states worried immensely about becoming meaningless in electoral decisions. So, the framers devised a system that would allow states to pick a slate of electors who would ultimately elect the president.

Naturally, you get a close-up look at the various sectional interests of the states. South Carolina and Georgia were particularly concerned about how their slave population would play into population figures. That’s where you get the infamous three-fifths-of-a-person designation.

It felt like the conventioneers, many of them at least, understood that the slavery issue was far from over. Even slaveholders spoke out about the wrongness of what they were doing, but it seemed incomprehensible to them that free blacks and whites could live together in the same culture. It seemed like some of them were horrified by their slavery and even more horrified at the thought that the two groups might one day peacefully coexist.

This is highly readable. The chapters run about 15 minutes in length if you read this at 2.5X, which is what I did. The author doesn't get too far in the weeds on some of the legal issues, and at no time did I find myself feeling puzzled or discombobulated by any of his explanations.

The only area where he and I might have some disagreement would be in his perception that the framers were not particularly inspired. While I in no way hold the constitution up as a second Bible or an additional set of scripture, I am firmly of the conviction that those men who met at that convention that summer received genuine and repeated divine intervention in the carrying out of their assignment. I'm simply unconvinced that common men with self-interests and the natural affinity to behave selfishly would have been able to achieve what they did without providential intervention. Of course, the document is far from perfect. It was far from perfect in its original iteration. They who framed it knew that, and many of them said so on numerous occasions while voicing their support for it. There's no way I can prove it, but I feel resoundingly certain that, had it not been for divine intervention, that convention would have broken up within a month into a hopeless morass of self-interest and immutable convictions that would have resulted in unparalleled disunity. The author referenced an older book called the miracle at Philadelphia, which I have subsequently downloaded and plan to read. The fact that the author uses the word miracle in her title gives me some hope that she perhaps acknowledges some higher source in the creation of the document.

Despite my petty little disagreement, I found this highly readable, memorable, and fascinating. I have always assumed that my now long dead history teachers at the Utah school for the blind were highly capable in their instruction of history. They probably were, but in no way did they dig as deeply into the constitutional convention as I've always thought they did. This book clearly proves that.

In summary, this would be well worth your time, the author will not ensnare you in a bizarre partisan rant, and you will come away with a deeper, better understanding of the constitution than you had before.

[Bookmarks Magazine · Rating 3 out of 5]

The challenge of writing an account of the Constitutional Convention is that so many accounts already exist. "Do we need another narrative history of the Constitutional Convention of 1787?" asks the Washington Post. While Beeman's book does not revolutionize the genre, it garners praise for examining the "the nuances and complexities of the compromises that the framers made" (New York Times) and for its detailed recreation of the Philadelphia debates. The most pointed complaint comes from Walter Isaacson in his otherwise positive New York Times review. He writes of Beeman's hesitancy to include too much of his own interpretation in the book: "[S:]ince he is in a far better position to make an assessment than we are, it would be nice to know what he believes."

This is an excerpt from a review published in Bookmarks magazine.

[Zach · Rating 4 out of 5]

Highly recommended! Beeman discusses the wide range of positions on each of the topics contained in our Constitution, helping the reader to understand why the resulting language is a compromise between the factions. This approach provides a deep understanding of the nuanced discussions and fragile agreements that began the creation of the system of government we have today.

[Mark Singer · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is the best book I have read on the creation of the American Constitution, and would recommend it to anyone interested in the subject. Beeman manages to describe how the document was made without getting crushed by detail.

[Linda]

This wasn't what I was looking for. It was a history about the men who wrote the Constitution but I really want something that explains the thinking behind the amendments. So - I didn't finish it.

[Dr G · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is a very fine work of history. As a non-American interested in political thought and social movements, I am grateful to (the late) Professor Beeman for educating me with an account which seems to me scholarly, thorough and balanced.
I generally dislike reviews which summarise books, but I can see no other way of commenting on this work. The points which I take away and which I think are at least consistent with Beeman's thesis would be:
1. While the thirteen states found a common cause in fighting for independence from Britain, there was little else they had in common. Many of them viewed themselves as separate colonies and saw themselves as fighting for their own state independence rather than being a part of a broader proto-national fight.
2. Several of the states considered the prospect of a powerful federal government as comparable to British hegemony; both reduced the state's autonomy.
3. Despite this, several states made some level of federalism almost inevitable as they (1) refused to pay for their involvement in the war (helping provoke a near rebellion of unpaid and badly provisioned officers and enlisted men, only avoided by the personal intervention of George Washington); (2) issued paper money without substantive backing and then legislated to mandate the currency as acceptable tender within the state; the effect of this was to damage the integrity of inter-state trade, to lead to dramatic inflation, and to cause international backers of the revolution (mainly France and Holland) to cease providing credit.
4. Many of the "plain honest men" participating in the Congress which produced the constitution were fighting for the autonomy and power of their own state legislatures, or for maintenance and enhancement of streams of wealth; common men were less passionate about state autonomy and more likely to favour a strong federal government.
5. The smaller states engaged in a form of ransom, threatening to remain out of a federation if certain of their demands were unmet; some even spoke of inviting other nations to support and assist them as a separate entity or, more likely, entities.
6. One of the aspects over which this strategy was employed was slavery. While slaves were never going to be given a vote, they were ultimately counted as 3/5 of a non-slave when population was being counted for reckoning a state's voting representation.
7. While there were anti-slavery delegates, very few envisaged an America where blacks and whites mixed freely; for that reason, some latitude was granted to the pro-slavery delegates. In particular, this included a clause preventing the federal government from abolishing slavery for twenty years, and another requiring non-slave states to return escaping slaves to their owners.
8. Some of the delegates who spoke against slavery were themselves slave-owners; 25 of the 55 delegates had slaves, including George Washington.
9. There was considerable concern amongst the elitist delegates regarding the capacity of ordinary people to participate wisely and knowledgeably in any decision-making, including voting. The appetite for creating a republic was much stronger than the appetite for a democracy; nevertheless, the means of legitimising the reduction of state power and the establishment of a national authority was by phrasing in terms of "the people".
10. The entire conference to produce a constitution was marked by obdurate obstinacy over many issues, with little appetite for compromise, and quite a lot of antagonism.
11. The final form of the constitution still contained many articles with which delegates disagreed strongly, but there was a sense that there needed to be an end somewhere; the pro-federals effectively ran a more strategic campaign.
12. There was a strict rule of secrecy, banning any release of information about the proceedings to anyone outside; remarkably, from a twenty-first century perspective, there appear to have been no leaks, even though leaking would probably have been strategically effective.
13. Once the constitution was in place, reverence for it became the unifying principle to replace the original unified determination to win independence from an intransigent and superciliously insensitive Britain.
14. Some cultivated this reverence in order to ensure stability; others, including notably Thomas Jefferson, argued that it was a document of a particular time and place, and not immortal and immutable.
For an outsider, the history of the constitution reveals its flaws and foibles and demonstrates the human weaknesses of its foundation. It is unfortunate that chauvinism now deifies the set of words which emerged from a combative, elitist, often self-interested meeting of ordinary men.
As a disinterested observe I might point out the paradox that the revolution was based on a refusal to accept life under a monarchy, and yet the current president is surely closer to a monarch than any of his predecessors.

[Mike Warren · Rating 5 out of 5]

The U.S. Constitution is the world's longest-surviving written charter of government. There's a tendency to believe that the people who created such an enduring document worked with a clear goal and a common purpose. However, as we learn in Richard Beeman's excellent book Plain, Honest Men: The Making of the American Constitution, that was not the case. The fifty-five delegates who met in Philadelphia in the summer of 1787 were all white, male, distinguished elitists. However, despite their shared identities, they had different ideas about how the American government should be structured.

The only consensus among them was that the existing government was in shambles. The Articles of Confederation established a group of states that were barely connected, with a weak central government that comprised only one branch: the Continental Congress. This Congress did not have the authority to levy taxes, regulate commerce, or create a standing army and instead relied on the states to perform these essential functions at their leisure. These limitations became stark during the Revolutionary War when many soldiers' families resorted to begging because the government didn’t have the money to pay its army.

The country needed a better charter, and the states sent delegates to Philadelphia to amend the Articles of Confederation. However, the delegates were not mandated to scrap the existing charter and create a new republican constitution from scratch, and as delegates trickled into Philadelphia during the early weeks of the convention, many were shocked when they learned what was afoot.

The idea to create an entirely new government originated from what would become known as the Virginia Plan, which was drafted by James Madison and agreed upon by delegates from Virginia and Pennsylvania shortly before the convention began in May. It was the closest thing to a blueprint that anyone brought to the convention. The Virginia and Pennsylvania delegates who championed Madison’s plan imagined a strong central government led by a Congress made up of two chambers, with each state contributing representatives in proportion to its size.

The question of proportional representation became a contentious issue because the small states feared they would become subordinate to the large states. The debate lasted nearly two months and dominates the first two hundred pages of Mr. Beeman’s five-hundred-page book. This may sound tedious, but the author does an outstanding job of keeping the reader engaged as he explores the nuances of 18th-century American politics that made the question of proportional representation so important to the convention delegates.

The stalemate ended on July 16 when a proposal first suggested by Roger Sherman of Connecticut on June 11 was finally adopted. What would become known as the Connecticut Compromise granted proportional representation in the House of Representatives and equal representation in the Senate. In hindsight, the compromise seems an obvious solution. However, at the time, the large states, led by Virginia and Pennsylvania, were nearly intractable on the issue of proportional representation in both chambers of Congress, and the Connecticut Compromise averted an existential threat to both the convention and the future of the American Republic.

The delegates feared tyranny and democracy in equal measure, raising difficult questions about the powers of the executive and how the executive would be elected. Questions that would vex the delegates until the convention’s final weeks.

The Revolutionary War and the disputes with the British king that led to it were still fresh in the delegates' minds in 1787. A few of them favored an executive committee rather than a single executive to prevent the executive branch from morphing into a hereditary monarchy. This proposal was not well received, but one of the convention's biggest challenges was striking a balance between giving the executive enough power to govern effectively without enabling a tyrant.

And then, there was the question of how to select an executive. The idea of a popular election was abhorrent to most delegates, but allowing Congress to select the executive, one of the most popular proposals, seemed unworkable because it would create an executive entirely beholden to Congress for re-election, which, for all practical purposes, would limit the executive to a single term of office. James Wilson of Pennsylvania first proposed a convoluted scheme for what would become known as the Electoral College in June, but it was so poorly received that he didn’t even bother to call for a vote.

The delegates grappled with the presidential election issue until the final week of the convention when a modified but still convoluted version of Wilson’s initial proposal was inserted into the Report of the Committee of Style. The delegates reluctantly adopted the plan, and as the author notes, the language in Article II, Section I explaining the Electoral College is some of the most inscrutable in the entire Constitution. The Electoral College was simply the best of a bad lot. This lesson is important for those who regard it as a holy writ.

The Constitution's most fundamental framework, co-equal branches of government controlled by a system of checks and balances, wasn't part of the Virginia Plan or any other master plan brought into the convention. The concept emerged gradually throughout the summer, meaning that one of the most brilliant schemes ever devised for a functional government resulted more from serendipity than planning.

Creating a new government from scratch was an ambitious project, and it was inevitable that the charter for the new government would yield unintended consequences. For instance, when enumerating the powers of Congress, the Committee of Detail added a phrase that gave Congress the power "to make all laws necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers . . ." When this clause was debated on August 20, it passed unanimously and without protest, suggesting that the delegates didn’t attach much significance to it. However, interpreting those "necessary and proper" powers became a contentious issue in the early years of the new republic. It created a schism between Jeffersonian republicans and Hamiltonian federalists, which became the basis for the first political parties. To this day, the question of how much power is granted to Congress, and by extension, the federal government, by the Necessary and Proper Clause remains one of the fundamental differences between liberals and conservatives.

Once the delegates completed their work, the Constitution was sent to New York for approval by the Continental Congress and, from there, forwarded to the states for ratification. Since the author’s objective is to give the reader a fly-on-the-wall perspective of the Philadelphia convention, the events at the state conventions are somewhat beyond the scope of this book. That story warrants its own book, such as Pauline Maier’s critically acclaimed Ratification: The People Debate the Constitution, 1787-1788. Regardless, the author devotes the final two chapters to summarizing the ratifying conventions, including a nailbiter in Virginia whose yes vote came shortly after the ninth and decisive vote for ratification by New Hampshire.

However, the real denouement of Mr. Beeman's story takes place on September 17, 1787, when the delegates who had not left the convention out of frustration or to attend to other business placed their signatures on the great charter. The final draft had a brief but eloquent preamble composed by Gouverneur Morris, the pompous, bloviating delegate from Pennsylvania, and was beautifully engrossed by Jacob Shallus, the Assistant Clerk to the Pennsylvania General Assembly.

The document is far from perfect. It extended the African slave trade for another twenty years and slavery itself indefinitely. The myopic focus on potential tensions between large and small states, which never materialized, caused the delegates to overlook the more critical tensions between northern and southern states that would lead to civil war and nearly destroy the country. It also lacked a bill of rights, a deficiency that would soon be corrected by the First Congress. Still, for all its flaws, after nearly two and a half centuries, the U.S. Constitution remains a model for the rest of the world, and thanks to the efforts of the fifty-five men who spent the summer of 1787 in Philadelphia, “we the people” enjoy a more perfect union.

Mr. Beeman's exceptional book vividly narrates the intriguing story behind the creation of our nation’s charter. He offers an insightful account of the discussions and debates inside that small room at the Pennsylvania State House, shedding new light on the significance of the Constitution and the intentions of the government it established.

[Wendy Lohr · Rating 5 out of 5]

*This review can also be found on my blog, The Never-Ending TBR Pile.

Dramatic. Intense. Controversial.

These words set the scene for the summer of 1787 as delegates debated on a revolutionary direction to take the United States. The Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia was full of intelligent men seeking to "form a more perfect union," but not necessarily agreeing on how to form it. Many ideas were debated over the long, hot summer, tempers flared frequently, and consensus was near impossible to obtain. And yet somehow, these men managed to eventually come together and develop a constitution that this country still operates under today.

Having been born and raised here in America, you'd think I would know the ins and outs of how my country was formed. Unfortunately, my knowledge was sorely lacking and in light of the current political atmosphere, I felt it was time to become more knowledgeable. And this book turned out to be the perfect educational read for me. It laid out all of the facts of that summer as well as the events leading up to it and the consequences that followed. And it did it in such a way as to keep me turning the page instead of losing me in tedium and recitation.

The author created a compelling story that not only spelled out the facts of the debates and the various events of that timeframe based on extensive research, but he also put in more of the human touch, inserting anecdotes concerning specific Founding Fathers, describing what the city of Philadelphia was like as well as what the multiple states forming the union were like during that time, and not holding back when showing the Founders in a truly human light. Everything from what the weather had been like to cultural norms to the reactions of both delegates and common citizens alike to the new direction being proposed, the author wove all of the elements together in a compelling and eye-opening read. By doing this, I felt as though I not only got a better understanding of what went into the making of our constitution, but I also got a better feel for what life had been like back then and why certain considerations and compromises were made.

In all, this is an excellent source for learning about America's constitution and I would highly recommend it to anyone wanting to increase their knowledge of this historical event!

[Cheryl Keller · Rating 4 out of 5]

Here is a fascinating account of the proceedings of the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia during the summer of 1787. The author, Richard Beeman, a scholar of early American history, provides many anecdotes about the weather and local news in Philadelphia and about the personalities of the participants (there's always a curmudgeon in every crowd and there was more than one in that one!) that make the story come alive. I had no previous knowledge of the ominous events in the early post-Revolutionary War days that gave rise to the need for the Constitutional Convention -- the impending financial crises, the serious disaffectation of many senior war veterans, the uprising in Massachusetts. Beeman begins with a bang!

However, this is not an "easy" read -- there were so many participants in the convention and Beeman covers them all -- that I found myself paging back and forth in the book to recall information about participants in the convention as the story unfolded. Fortunately there is a great subject index.

The chapters that describe what is known about the debates around the office of the President, and that provide the context of slavery in the deliberations and decisions of the convention I found to be especially interesting. And one amazing thing -- something I can hardly imagine today, is that the participants agreed to and kept a commitment to the secrecy/privacy of all the discussions that took place in the convention.

The title "Plain, Honest Men" comes a speech by one of the convention participants, Gouverneur Morris of Massachusetts, disagreeing with a popular sentiment that the new Constitution was a kind of divine miracle, said, "while some have boasted it as a work from Heaven, others have given it a less righteous origin. I have many reasons to believe that it is the work of plain, honest men."

For anyone seeking a deeper understanding of why the Constitution was needed, who were the primary participants in the development of the Constitution and what were their "agendas," and what the salient topics of debate were for all the framers of that Constitution, this book is a great read.

[Elizabeth Burton · Rating 4 out of 5]

Like most people, I suspect, my knowledge of how the US Constitution came about was limited to what I was taught in American history class in high school and whatever I picked up since. Which wasn't much.

When I encounter a political and/or historical theme on social media where there seems to be a high level of propaganda attached, I go looking for book recommendations on the subject, including reviews containing words like "balanced" and "unbiased". When I decided I was overdue for knowing about the country's birth, and perhaps insight into the thought processes of the midwives, this book ended up at the top of the list.

If you care about where we are as a political entity, where we started and why, and where we might go in the future, this is an excellent place to begin wrapping one's head around the subject. There's a great deal of smug railing about how the Constitution was written by "a bunch of rich White men" and so needs to be replaced. The first part is true. The second part, for anyone with common sense, is not.

The men who gathered in Philadelphia in May of 1787 knew they weren't going to end up with a perfect solution to creating a united nation out of 13 contentious states. They—well, most of them, anyway—understood they were likely going to have to make distasteful compromises, and they did. What they also did was understand that times change, and so they needed to have a final document that could adapt to those changes. And then convince at least nine of those contentious states to sign on for the duration.

This book is an easily absorbed narrative of those compromises—the whys, the wherefores, and the whos. It doesn't pretend to analyze any more than is necessary for making sense of the process, but at the same time it doesn't color over the personal flaws of those who were trying to bring order to chaos. Like the writers of the Constitution, it's not perfect; but the end result is definitely worth reading.

[Shmu · Rating 5 out of 5]

I've been reading a lot of very good and interesting novels and memoirs lately, and I wouldn't be much of a total nerd if that continued. Back to me reading random history stuff, at least for this weekend.

This is a really good book! Incredibly in depth, talks about all of the ideas (and all of the people!) that went into the making of the constitution. And Ben Franklin, who got completely ignored the entire time lol.

The title of the book is a pretty bold editorial choice, being Gouvernor Morris' idea about how no hand of Providence was involved in the making of the country and the constitution. The argument over how much Christianity (and Washingtonian freemasonry, and Adams unitarianism, and Jefferson's anti-Christian Christianity, which I'm extremely interested in and would love to read more about) is much longer than could fit in a goodreads review.

The slavery stuff sounds like it would be hard to read, and yes! It is!

It's interesting how perspectives toward the convertion were going in, with most delegates not even clear that the Articles of Confederation were out. Madison really balled out.

Also just a ton of cool facts. It's interesting how so many "later" Patriots of the time were Loyalists fro so long because, in addition to being delegates, they were extremely wealthy businessmen with business interests in London.

Super well written account of four months that led to the next 2.5 centuries of US history. Could not recommend more.

Read this!

[Adam Partridge · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book delivers exactly what its subtitle promises: a detailed, day-by-day account of the Constitutional Convention of 1787. This book was precisely what I hoped for—an immersive dive into the drama, intellectual clashes, and human elements behind the creation of the U.S. Constitution.

The competing visions and personalities at play are brought to life. We see the Virginia Plan’s bold push for a strong national government, championed by James Madison, pitted against the New Jersey Plan’s defense of state sovereignty. The fierce debates over representation culminate in the Great Compromise, while tensions over slavery lead to uneasy agreements that would haunt the nation for generations.

What stands out is the external pressure from a restless public and a faltering Articles of Confederation, combined with the delegates’ remarkable good faith. Despite deep divisions, these men—George Washington presiding with quiet authority, Benjamin Franklin offering wisdom and humor, and a host of sharp-minded founders—worked in secrecy and compromise to forge a framework for what would become the greatest nation in history.

The narrative can feel dry at times, with its focus on procedural minutiae and extended debates, but that’s inherent to the subject. If you're uninterested in the nuts-and-bolts formation of the Constitution, why are you even reading this book?

This book is a balanced and accessible portrait that reminds us how fragile the founding moment was, and how extraordinary the result.

[Alex · Rating 4 out of 5]

“Plain, Honest Men” takes us behind the curtain to see how the US Constitution was made. The Articles of Confederation provided limited power to the federal government, and the events of Shay’s Rebellion showed the weakness of that government to raise the funds to put down the rebellion. As a result, the need for a revised document to better define the powers of the federal government and those of the individual states was required.

The details within this book provided insight into the gathering of the representatives from each of the states to The State House in Philadelphia. It was a heated debate over the separation of powers, the power of the federal government vs. the state governments, the role of the president and Congress, and even how to deal with the continued stain of slavery within the country.

The well-known names of Washington, Hamilton, and Madison are well documented, but there are other names that are often overlooked that are given their proper recognition.

Anyone interested in American history and how our country’s foundational document was created should take the time to read this book.

[Han Willhoft-King · Rating 5 out of 5]

Should be mandatory reading for all US citizens or anyone interested in current US politics. Extremely well written, bringing life to one of the most important and impactful political writings in history. Also Madison might be tossing with Hamilton now as my favourite of the founding fathers. It shames me to think how our politicians can go from being capable of months of intense but respectful debate on the principles of good governance and the foundations of a prosperous nation, the conflicting interests of small state sovereignty and the need for a powerful federal government, and the moral and economic justifications for slavery (which was referred to in euphemisms throughout the entire convention) to that clown show of a Presidential Debate between Biden and Trump; the first of whom has the mental faculties of a decrepit zombie and the latter who is an oranged face biggot who is incapable of referring to his fellow human beings as something other than 'aliens' and whose mere voice alone makes me wants to hit my head through a wall.
Nice going USA.

[Andy Madajski · Rating 4 out of 5]

I selected this book to read because I wanted an insider view on how the Constitution was written. I wanted something written before our current crisis so I could fairly evaluate some of the contradictory rulings of an "originalist" Supreme Court. This book allowed me to hit both goals.

This is a very thorough look at all of the debates and compromises that went into our country's foundational document. I have to admit that, at times, the detailing made this a less than fascinating read. However, it is worth powering through because it shows just how flimsy and arbitrary the arguments of the originalists are. This was a messy, complicated process, and Beeman does an excellent job of tracing every twist and turn. It's easy to see what a bane slavery has been in our country: socially, morally, and, here, politically.

At several points I had to pause and think about how different our country's history might have been if one of these compromises had gone the other way.

I do wish Beeman would have given us more of his opinions on these issues in the Constitution - simply because he is an expert in this and I am not. I would have liked some balance to my own personal, non-expert opinions.