Ratification: The People Debate the Constitution, 1787-1788

by Pauline Maier

When the delegates left the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia in September 1787, the new Constitution they had written was no more than a proposal. Elected conventions in at least nine of the thirteen states would have to ratify it before it could take effect. There was reason to doubt whether that would happen. The document we revere today as the foundation of our country’s laws, the cornerstone of our legal system, was hotly disputed at the time. Some Americans denounced the Constitution for threatening the liberty that Americans had won at great cost in the Revolutionary War. One group of fiercely patriotic opponents even burned the document in a raucous public demonstration on the Fourth of July.

In this splendid new history, Pauline Maier tells the dramatic story of the yearlong battle over ratification that brought such famous founders as Washington, Hamilton, Madison, Jay, and Henry together with less well-known Americans who sometimes eloquently and always passionately expressed their hopes and fears for their new country. Men argued in taverns and coffeehouses; women joined the debate in their parlors; broadsides and newspaper stories advocated various points of view and excoriated others. In small towns and counties across the country people read the document carefully and knew it well. Americans seized the opportunity to play a role in shaping the new nation. Then the ratifying conventions chosen by "We the People" scrutinized and debated the Constitution clause by clause.

Although many books have been written about the Constitutional Convention, this is the first major history of ratification. It draws on a vast new collection of documents and tells the story with masterful attention to detail in a dynamic narrative. Each state’s experience was different, and Maier gives each its due even as she focuses on the four critical states of Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, Virginia, and New York, whose approval of the Constitution was crucial to its success.

The New Yorker Gilbert Livingston called his participation in the ratification convention the greatest transaction of his life. The hundreds of delegates to the ratifying conventions took their responsibility seriously, and their careful inspection of the Constitution can tell us much today about a document whose meaning continues to be subject to interpretation. Ratification is the story of the founding drama of our nation, superbly told in a history that transports readers back more than two centuries to reveal the convictions and aspirations on which our country was built.

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

472 pages, Hardcover

First published October 19, 2010

About the author

Dr. Pauline Maier was a historian of the American Revolution, though her work also addressed the late colonial period and the history of the United States after the end of the Revolutionary War. She was the William R. Kenan, Jr. Professor of American History at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT).

Maier achieved prominence over a fifty-year career of critically acclaimed scholarly histories and journal articles. She was a Fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences and taught undergraduates. She authored textbooks and online courses. Her popular career included series with PBS and the History Channel. She appeared on Charlie Rose, C-SPAN2's In Depth and wrote 20 years for The New York Times review pages. Maier was the 2011 President of the Society of American Historians. She won the 2011 George Washington Book Prize for her book Ratification: The People Debate the Constitution, 1787-1788. She died in 2013 from lung cancer at the age of 75.

Reviews

[Steven Peterson · Rating 4 out of 5]

Over time, I have had a real interest in the founding period of the United States. The battle over ratification is one of those points in which I am especially interested (I have even done some professional research on the subject, to the extent that that has any relevance). This book, though, delves nicely into the ratification struggle after the Constitutional Convention concluded its business in 1787.

The book is well detailed, discussing the events in the various states' ratification conventions. The process was highly political. These were not Greek philosophers involved; they were practicing politicians and, in many cases, they played hardball. For example, in some states, supporters of the Constitution controlled newspapers. Guess what? Arguments against the Constitution never appeared.

At any rate, this is a fine historical work that fills a need in the larger literature on the Constitution's origins.

[Caroline · Rating 5 out of 5]

I found this a comprehensive and balanced portrayal of the drama of the ratification process of the US Constitution. Maier covered a great many of the players and their sometimes fluid positions, she kept the action moving, and she injected judicious amounts of analysis about why individuals and coalitions were acting as they did. She clearly has read deeply in the journals, newspapers, and official records of the period. That means she was able to liberally use comments from less well known delegates to state ratifying conventions, as well as quotes from the papers of major players.

The most difficult thing to keep in mind is how reasonable it was for the ‘anti-federalists’ to be suspicious of the document as proposed. (She starts by saying ‘anti-federalists’ is a misnomer; there was no monolithic opposition, but a wide range of views on how far the original document strayed from a ‘safe’ government. Federalists were generally more concerned about an ‘effective’ government.)

We view the Constitution as a great heritage that has enabled Americans to exercise their freedoms and kept us under a rule of law that citizens accept no matter how unhappy it makes them. We know the three branches of government have emerged as reasonably balanced. But citizens of the time, who viewed themselves mainly as residents of individual colonies, recently under the rule of Parliament and King, had no reason to trust that an unknown President and Congress, and an undefined administrative structure, wouldn’t run up taxes (many states were suffering from lack of specie and very high taxes to repay war debts), require them to travel hundreds of miles to pursue minor lawsuits, or infringe on free speech rights. The federalists were able to wangle ratification from enough states to get rolling, despite virtually all states arguing that the constitution as proposed was flawed and needed immediate amendments. After the minimum approvals came in, the rest concluded they were better off working for amendments as participating states than trying to coerce the amendments from outside.

And in fact, many of the changes the states wanted were incorporated sooner or later; some as late as 1992. So what we think of as the basis of our union is not the result of one side ‘winning’, but rather of time proving that all along the spectrum of supporters and opponents there were people with valid concerns that eventually were addressed, as well as people who were a bit paranoid and who were proven wrong by the checks and balances and party tussles that guide day to day events.

This is valuable reading as we face such deep divisions over the proper direction of government. I think what struck me most is how old the division of outlooks between coastal areas and inland areas is. The grounds of the differences may shift from time to time, but that fundamental difference in outlook seems to persist. This project of revisiting the origins of our government now proceeds to Rakov’s Original Meanings: Politics and Ideas in the Making of the Constitution.

[Hannah Spaar · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book could alternatively be titled "The Tale of America's Greatest Political Sausage."

It is hilarious while reading about the tactics necessary to pass the Constitution to listen to modern politicians praise it as a perfect, sacred document. If you didn't already realize how much it has needed to be expanded on over the years (redefining suffrage and representation as well as the Roosevelts' great expansion of the scope of the nation), you might be shocked to realize that the Constitution was formed by a group of men trying to find compromises on competing ideas. Even Madison, who is credited with the Constitution's formation, is referenced in the closing chapters of the book as finally expressing his own problems with the document.

That dose of reality is the beauty of this book. The opinions of numerous men, and even a few women, are brought in along the way to show a perfect picture of just how we got the Constitution we have, and why it's for any reason except some clear picture of a "perfect" government. The opinions, at times necessarily but annoyingly redundant, are told through wonderful little biographies that refrain from committing the sin of numerous history textbooks throughout the country: demonizing the antifederalists. Instead, each opponent and proponent has his moment of explaining his worldview, and you even find yourself endeared to them and their struggle to stand up to those who picture themselves their betters. Of course, you are also endeared to the victors, particularly in the New York convention, which has the hallmark of a great American underdog story.

[Fredrick Danysh · Rating 4 out of 5]

Following the American Revolution, the former colonies formed a loose confederation. When the Articles of Confederation created just as many problems as they solved, a convention was called to resolve the issue. After throwing out the Articles of Confederation the delegates started the struggle of forming a new central government. This work examines the whole process in detail and gives insight into what the Constitution as conceived by the Founding Fathers intended This is an excellent read into the meaning and workings of the United States Constitution.

[Frank Stein · Rating 4 out of 5]

I was surprised to read that this was the first complete book on the ratification of the U.S. constitution out there. Fortunately, Maier finally gives the subject the comprehensive and enlightening treatment it deserves. She was able to complete this daunting task due to the publication of the "Documentary History of the Ratification of the Constitution" which compiled the papers on ratification, which were once scattered across the country, into an accessible whole. Now, this book may work like what's called in the retail world a "category killer." It should make anyone else, even with the help of the DHRC, think twice before attempting a similar feat. Maier will surely dominate the field for generations.

Even considering the difficulty of compiling the documents, the absence of study on the ratification is surprising when one considers the famous James Madison quote of 1796, where, after expounding on the nature of the Constitutional Convention that created the document, he noted its limitations, and claimed it could propose nothing more than "the draught of a plan, nothing but a dead letter...If we were to look, therefore, at the meaning of the instrument, we must look for it not in the general convention, which proposed, but in the state conventions, which accepted and ratified the constitution." The founding fathers themselves thought the people ratifying the document should be the locus of its understanding. Also, when considering that contemporary "original meaning" jurisprudence has shifted from the "intention" of the founders to the commonly accepted meaning of the words at the time of ratification, this is a book with an uncommon power to elucidate the nature of both our past and our modern government, with real implications for contemporary constitutional law.

So what do we learn? For one, we learn that most people at the time felt the need for a new, stronger, constitution, and that the vast majority of the opposition to the plan rested not on the fundamentals of the document (though people like Luther Martin and Patrick Henry were profoundly distrustful of those) but on the need for certain clarifying amendments. Some of these are completely understandable today, such as the need for clarification on the freedom of the press or habeas corpus. Most of those ended up in the "Bill of Rights" (though Maier notes that that term didn't come into use until after the Civil War). Others, such as the need for term limits, which many state constitutions had at the time, are still being fought over today. Other complaints are much stranger. At the time, one of the most common charges of the "Anti-federalists" (a derogatory term denied by its appellants everywhere accept New York) was that the Senate was a inherently corrupting body, which inappropriately mingled the nature of the Executive and the Legislative branches, since it would "advise and consent" on Presidential appointments and it had the Vice President at its head. Many feared that the President and the Senate (through, among other powers, its sole authority over treaties) would collaborate to rule the government together. One of the other most common proposed amendments was that the federal government should not have power to levy a "direct tax" until a state had already tried and failed to levy its requisition, another was that all "commercial" laws should require a two-thirds majority, since they so impacted the nature of state government (I'm all for that one). In the end, these charges were almost enough to sink the document, and in state after state, the Federalists, were able to squeak by with just a handful of votes, and those often acquired against the original intentions of the delegates to vote against it. They had honestly convinced their fellow countrymen of the values of their work.

The main problem with the book is that the discussion of these ideas gets tedious and repetitive, especially around the Virginia (10th to ratify) and New York (11th to ratify) debates. Also, although Maier's contends that the debates showed the uncommmon perspicacity of the average citizens about deep constitutional questions, I was less convinced than I imagined. At many of these debates the educated elites (who were almost always Federalists) were able to overawe the simple farmer and mechanic delegates, and they remained largely silent throughout. Unlike Gordon Wood's "Creation of the American Republic," this book left me wondering just what many of the common people thought about their founding documents after it was proposed.

[David · Rating 4 out of 5]

Excellent, challenging read. Every person that wants to understand the bill of rights should read the final chapter.

[Iggy · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is a very comprehensive and what should now be a definitive and scholarly account of the ratification debates in the states. It is not an examination/discussion of the Federalist Papers, which were aimed primarily at New York and weren't otherwise widely circulated throughout the states. Rather, the book captures the debates at the state ratifying conventions primarily in the years 1787-1788, and also some discussion of the late ratifiers (North Carolina and Rhode Island) in 1789 and 1790.

The book is extremely well-researched. It is filled with debates, speeches, political strategies by both Federalists and Anti-Federalists and other political maneuverings and machinations. What stands out as the most distinctive feature of the book, is that Pauline Maier finally gives the anti-Federalists their due. Many scholars have a tendency to dismiss anti-Federalists as essentially conspiracy theorists, or otherwise self-interested political activists. However, Pauline Maier treats them with respect, by putting them and Federalists in contemporary context. This is not to suggest that she is biased in favor of the anti-Federalists, but rather to say that she puts them on equal footing with the Federalists, as opposed to treating them with the usual derision.

Pauline Maier is also a fabulous writer and a story teller. The book feels like a well-written fiction, told by an unbiased narrator, rather than a scholarly historic account. Indeed, Pauline Maier asks the readers in the Introduction to suspend their knowledge of this history and just transport themselves into that time period and to try to pretend that they don't know the outcome of the ratification story. This is important because it's easy to assume that the ratification of the Constitution was a foregone conclusion; indeed, it wasn't.

However, the book is not without its flaws. For one, because so many speeches and debates were so similar from state to state, I felt there were many redundancies throughout the book. It is about 470 reading pages, but probably could have been compressed into 350, or even 300, without losing anything substantial.
Secondly, I felt that instead of focusing so much on the redundant speeches and debates from state to state, more focus should have been given to the political analysis. For example, why were some states more predisposed towards the Constitution and others were largely against it? Did it reflect the difference in geography, social and/or political culture of the states, or the different economies? And what ultimately convinced the anti-Federalists in some states (particularly New York, where the anti-Federalists outnumbered the Federalists at the ratifying convention by more than 2 to 1) to switch their persuasions? Were there some deep motivations, or simply pragmatic considerations? And why did the country ultimately embrace the Constitution in the very first federal election, when Federalists were swept into both chambers of Congress?
While Pauline Maier discusses these issues, she abstains from forming any solid conclusions about any of the above and doesn't engage in deep political analysis.

Despite the possible shortcomings mentioned above, it's a fabulous book of historical story-telling and I would recommend it to history novices and buffs alike.

[Emily · Rating 4 out of 5]

Ten years of our new, revolutionary government under the Articles of Confederacy left the United States limping along, semi-bankrupt, and in complete chaos, and a semi-legal group of great citizens, including a reluctant George Washington, organized to create a new governing document, with the understanding that they could change it later but the Articles weren't working out. After a summer in a warm room hashing out the details, the new constitution was sent out to the various states with an assurance that it was definitely legal and that they should choose to ratify it or not ratify it within assemblies made up of other honorable citizens. This led to thirteen debates about the constitution that are chronicled here. Some states agreed to the terms, some states argued about whether a bill of rights similar to the states' bills of rights should be added, some states went through the document line by line, Rhode Island was already weird, sometimes there was yelling, some citizens struggled with the funds to spend a month at an inn in a major town, this book is long. I would have gotten more out of it and paid more attention to it if I was reading it, but that would have taken a while. The audio narrator is great and mostly holds your attention through the endless details of which states and who said and letters and surviving documents. Friends we vaguely know are here: Patrick Henry hates the constitution, Elbridge Gerry hasn't mandered anything yet, George Clinton was not a big fan, Alexander Hamilton is pro-constitution with reservations, but overall, the majority of prominent citizens thought the constitution was the best option for right now and they mostly controlled the newspapers, so our records are biased. Banger of a long book about an unsung mess of US history.

[Urey Patrick · Rating 5 out of 5]

As is well known, in 1787 the Constitutional Convention was held in Philadelphia and produced the Constitution that is the foundation of American democracy. What is less well known is the ratification process that ensued over the ensuing yearlong period. Ratification of the Constitution was a near thing... and Pauline Maier has written a masterpiece of history narrating that process. It is gripping, even though we know how it finally turns out. But getting there was astoundingly controversial, and in the process, surprisingly uncertain.

The Convention was intended to improve the Articles of Confederation, which in turn had developed into a failed government experiment, widely recognized and accepted as such among the states. It didn’t do that, and presupposing the will of We The People, it manufactured a new governmental structure – the Constitution. The book proceeds to narrate the chronological history of the thirteen states respective ratification processes.

The Convention provided that Ratification had to be an up or down vote – no changes were permissible because the People had expressed their will as a whole, and individual states could not alter that. They pointed to the process established within the Constitution for amendments and changes, and argued that after ratification that process could be engaged. Opponents and critics of the document did not agree, and wanted changes made before ratification or as a condition of ratification, or if the document could not be changed, a second convention to do just that.

The objections to the Constitution were many, and generally principled, reasoned and diligently argued. Several broad categories of complaint were apparent across the states. Generally, they did not like the representation ratios, the direct taxing authority, the power given Congress to set state election processes, the lack of a bill of rights, the power to establish a standing army, the judiciary or the Senate, as well as a number of other criticisms more peculiar to specific states. The arguments for, and against, and the political processes as they unfolded in each of the states both electing and establishing their respective conventions and the progress of the conventions, are fascinating – often spellbinding.

A few states (New Jersey, Connecticut, Delaware and to an extent Georgia) elected delegates and ratified the Constitution with little or no drama. None of the others did. Pennsylvania had a two to one majority in the legislature in favor of ratification, and used that majority to ram it through, steamrolling critics and debates. That caused considerable bitterness, and subsequently engendered a more determined resistance to the whole idea of unified government under the proposed Constitution. The Pennsylvania “anti’s” actively engaged with other “anti’s” in other states to influence the results of those conventions.

Massachusetts followed, but took a different approach. There the pro-ratification side (the Federalists) bent over backwards to enable and allow debate, to give the “anti’s” ample time and opportunity to make their objections known and to counter with reasoned argument. And yet ratification up or down would have gone down, had not the Federalists, against their considered judgment, not agreed to submit a list of amendments to be considered by Congress after ratification. The Massachusetts example became a model for other states to come.

Massachusetts was followed by New Hampshire, considered a sure thing – but it wasn’t and they adjourned without voting at all to avoid rejection. That seriously complicated the Federalists’ efforts to come in Virginia, New York and North Carolina. The issue was in serious doubt, and the accounts of the respective conventions, the debates, the personalities and the arguments for and against are spellbinding. Virginia, and then New York, were essential, and were in doubt. Both flirted with rejecting the Constitution and going it alone, independently of the new union. The political maneuvering is as absorbing as the arguments for and against the various provision s of the Constitution.

Rhode Island meanwhile did not bother with a convention, choosing instead to submit the question of ratification to a referendum that overwhelmingly rejected it.

Ultimately, eleven of the thirteen states did ratify. North Carolina (unexpectedly) and Rhode Island did not. These were costly mistakes – standing apart from the United States had consequences that overcame North Carolina’s reluctance after about six months. Rhode Island was something else, but even they finally came around once the new US Senate lost patience and made it illegal to trade with them. However the final vote of the convention they finally, reluctantly, held ratified by two votes, and then only because the vote was held the day that four “anti’s” were absent from the convention. Imagine.

Maier devotes the final chapter to the Bill of Rights. It’s another fascinating story, and not what one might think given the status of the Bill of Rights today. Madison proposed twelve amendments to the new Congress, intending to forestall any chance of a second Constitutional convention. Those amendments were winnowed, edited, and adjusted through the House and Senate, resulting in the ten amendments we now call the Bill of Rights. As we view them today has been an evolutionary process, and a manifestation of the vibrant and exceptional nature of American governance and foundational principles. Suffice to say here that they were not even referred to as the Bill of Rights until roughly 1880.

The book is masterful. On a five-star rating system, I’d give it a ten! Maier is both an accomplished and authoritative historian and a gifted writer able to put the reader in the moment, to evoke the humanity and the anxieties and the natures of the people about whom she writes. There are moments of utter suspense – and we know today how it all turned out! Even more importantly, this book evokes an appreciation of the fundamental underpinnings of our system of government and an understanding of the development and evolution of its principles and structures. It was never a sure thing in its creation, and it has only gotten better. This is American exceptionalism.

[Susan Ferguson · Rating 5 out of 5]

Very interesting. I noted on pg. 367, a motion on the Constitution in the ratification debate in Virginia "included a preamble that said the powers granted to the federal government under the Constitution were a gift of the people, and the people could reclaim those powers if they were misused to cause oppression. Every power not specifically granted remained with the people and could not be cancelled, abridged, restrained, or modified by Congress, the president, or any other officer of the United States except where the Constitution gave them power to do that."

Very interesting reading. I also was impressed with the Madison's points on the bill of rights (never so-called at the time) on page 550, 'In the American republic, however, he thought that the greatest power and so the greatest danger lay "in the body of the people, operating by the majority against the minority." Although a "paper barrier" was notoriously ineffective against the "power of the community", insofar as a bill of rights commanded respect and favor it could "be one means to controul the majority from those acts to which they might be otherwise inclined." '
David informed me this is called the tyranny of the majority.

[Socraticgadfly · Rating 5 out of 5]

Good look at what it took to pass the Constitution

I had read nothing about North Carolina's ratification history, nor Rhode Island's, so on this grounds alone, the book is great. Beyond that, Maier gets beyond Federalist/Antifederalist rhetoric (much of it Federalist-driven) and gets beyond "The Federalist" as well.

Political tactics and more all unfold in this book, from Pennsylvania's failed rush to be "The First State" through Massachusetts Federalists' careful, thought-out strategy, on to Virginia's magisterial debates, the surprising results in New York and more, there's a trove of information presented in this book.

In addition, Maier talks about how many of the different state ratifying conventions were concerned first about the Constitution's provision for federal taxation powers and only second for a bill of rights or similar.

This book is jam-packed, but, it is not a difficult read, contra another reviewer. It's certainly NOT a "monograph."

In fact, in places like Massachusetts, Virginia and New York, Maier can almost make me picture the state conventions and some of the actors and actions.

[Zach M · Rating 5 out of 5]

When I read non-fiction books, they tend to be about the Founding Fathers of the United States of America. In those books, mainly biographies, they tend to focus on the person and human behind the name. The stories are often personal and close to the subjects eye. I have read many books that guide the reader through the subjects life in an effort to convey their emotions and thought process during the highlights of their lives.

In Pauline Maier's Ratification, these people are, expertly shown to be people they were, more drawn to show how the community and politics of the age were impacting their discussion about the ratification of the U.S. Constitution. When these names are taken individually, their accomplishments and history might overshadow the work and condition they found themselves beholden to. In this book, the reader sees them in the thick of it, almost as bit players in what becomes a national revolution of sorts.

[Arista · Rating 2 out of 5]

I once listened to a podcast in which the author and another historian (Jack Rakove) complained about popular historians (like Chernow and McCullough). Yes, it was largely a sour grapes griping session, but they seemed genuinely puzzled why pop historians sell books and they don’t. This book is why. It’s very thorough and she clearly knows her stuff, but my God- I’m not sure that anyone, outside a graduate class, needs this level of granularity on the ratification conventions. Woof. I read A LOT of Founding Era and Early Republic history and like the weeds stuff, but jeez. I’ll hand it to her that the author makes an attempt at a framing narrative, but it’s clear that she’s too much of an academic to do it well.

[Jud Barry · Rating 3 out of 5]

Governing any kind of organization that operates on the principle of majority rule is hard, boring work. That includes the work of devising the rules by which the organization will operate, assuming that process also requires some kind of majority consensus. This book does an excellent job of capturing the boredom and drudgery that our founding fathers had to endure in order to get an already-drafted Constitution approved by the requisite number of states. It does make for slow, tough going at times, with sentences like this one: "While waiting impatiently for the committee to report, the convention had decided that it would consider only amendments that the committee recommended. Since the committee proposed no amendments, the convention refused to consider even those less objectionable amendments to which the committee had previously agreed."

The book is nonetheless worth the effort if one is at all interested in the process by which the Confederated States became the United States. As primarily a work designed to provide a record of that process, it is necessarily freighted with procedural wool-gathering for which it should not be gainsaid. The patient reader will learn much.

One principle in particular that Maier emphasizes, and that should be a basic civics lesson for all Americans, is that the process was painstakingly devised so that ratification -- should it occur -- would be by "we the people" and not "we the states," in spite of opposition particularly from those like Patrick Henry of Virginia and George Clinton of New York (both of whom were or had been governors) who did not want to ditch state sovereignty for a federal system. Maier is particularly effective in explaining Pennsylvanian James Wilson's defense of the proposed system -- which she calls "one of the great theoretical innovations of the ratification debates" -- whereby he countered the argument that unitary sovereignty meant that the new "consolidated" government would necessarily destroy the state governments by saying that, in fact, American sovereignty resided "not in any set of governmental institutions but in the people," who could thus distribute one set of powers to the states and another to a central government.

The Constitution is, of course, universally venerated by Americans today -- not always for informed reasons -- so it is instructive to read that that was certainly not the case while its fate was being decided. Technically, even though ratification occurred without Virginia or New York, nonetheless anything like real unity depended on approval by those two states. Both were only narrowly swayed into the "yes" column, Virginia by the hope of immediate amendments or even a second constitutional convention, and New York with similar expectations, but also (what with Virginia approving) not wanting to be left out of whatever process would lead to such changes.

Late 18th-century American issues would not be our own, of course, but the 21st century reader will find the political landscape unchanged in some regards, particularly as regards the inevitable snake in the democratic garden: parties. Although inchoate (only in New York was there enough organization to produce anything approaching canvassing on behalf of candidates), the contending groups felt a very contemporary kind of visceral hostility towards one another that produced dirty tricks and sometimes broke out into open violence, leading one to conclude that nothing is new under the American political sun.

[Samantha · Rating 5 out of 5]

Most of us are familiar with at least the outline of this story, perhaps from an American History or Civics class: the Constitution had to be ratified by at least 9 states in order to replace the Articles of Confederation (in those states) and a debate went on between the "Federalists" who supported the Constitution and the "Anti-Federalists" who felt that it curtailed states' rights too much and would lead to tyranny. This history tells a more complete version of that tale. Those who solemnly invoke the "Founding Fathers" at every turn tend to leave out the fact that 18th-century politics was fairly rowdy business. Our current-day politicians and pundits may insult each other, but they typically don't publicly call for their opponents to be tarred and feathered. When their speeches at the various ratifiying conventions could be accurately recorded and transcribed (which they weren't, always), several notable figures emerge. Here are the irascible Alexander Hamilton (I didn't know, previously, that he was born out of wedlock on the island of Nevis), the fierce orator Patrick Henry, whose role in the Revolution led him to distrust federal government, and the sometimes obstructionist New York governor George Clinton.

Though we all know that the Constitution was eventually ratified, some facts will still be surprising. The Federalists, for example, included the owners of many newspapers; hence the use of "Anti-Federalist" as a term of derision, and the overwhelming proportion of federalist essays (published under pseudonyms) that the public had at its disposal. The drive for ratification gained something of a momentum, with states with a fair amount of opposition being influenced by states that had held earlier conventions and already decided to ratify. The book gives both a fair picture of the atmosphere and circumstances surrounding the ratification process and a valuable reminder of how the Constitution is not and was never a perfect document. It is easy to see, from the contentious process that birthed it, that the seeds of the Civil War were sown in the compromises the states made among themselves to form a stronger union.

[Bob Gustafson · Rating 3 out of 5]

The author collected the facts and put them into a book. New Jersey and Georgia aside, she was thorough. She chose not to cover the constitutional convention. She chose to end her story when the last of the thirteen, Rhode Island, ratified. Each state had a ratifying convention (New Hampshire had two) and she told the story of the ratifying conventions one at a time leaving out Georgia and New Jersey.

This was a difficult story to tell, but it could have been told better, I believe. She could have left George Washington out of the story altogether. One of the points that she makes is that there was no national or continental news medium, so that each state was its own story. She could have used that fact and organized the book as a series of monthly news reports beginning in September 1787, one for each state from Georgia north to New Hampshire. There might have been only one report from Delaware, and it might have been a long time until the first report came in from Rhode Island, but I think that format might have worked.

The book would have benefited from more biographical information of the major characters in each state. I went to Wikipedia for that. One of the issues, especially in Pennsylvania, was process. It would have made sense, when covering a "late" state like New York to review what had happened in "early" states. The same is true when covering debates over sections of the articles, such as direct taxation or the apportionment of house seats.

I read the Kindle edition. It was very difficult to access the notes. I was successful less than ten percent of the time. I once read a book called "The Disappearing Spoon", a chemistry book. In that ebook when I tapped on the number indicating the note, I got the note, not a Wikipedia explanation of the number 26.

In sum, the book had a lot to be appreciated, but it left a lot to be desired.

[Gordon · Rating 5 out of 5]

Another great read exposing the true struggle to the creation of the United States. This one focusing primarily on the narrow window of the ratification of the newly drafted constitution in 1887 and how the people of the various states struggled to understand and accept it as the imperfect, but necessary framework needed to maintain the formerly nearly broken union.
Most people today do not realize neither the near failed state that the confederation of states was in at the time, not the major upheaval and transformation required to salvage some form of unity without tearing the states apart into separate independent states, or some potentially reverting back to British rule.
It is amazing and revealing to see How divided the people: leaders, commoners, poor, wealthy, aristocrats and commoners of each were on accepting the new constitution. We think today that our elections are nail biting contests split 50/50 and think it is unique to our time. It is not! Many states in the ratification process were difficult, tight contests between parties of well informed and rational arguments for each perspective.
One of the difficult aspects of the ratification process is that the constitutional convention delivered the draft constitution to the states with the mandate to ratify it in whole, as is, without amendment or reject it altogether! With such an imperfect and complex document, introducing a revolutionary political construct, it is reasonable that many people would have a hard time swallowing such a large pill without struggle. And do it was.
( more to come…)

[Judy · Rating 5 out of 5]

I'm sensing that this book might appeal to a rather limited audience, but it's definitely worth the read. When the drafters of the Constitution finished the document in 1787 they biased the document toward ratification by only requiring 2/3 of the states to ratify (Rhode Island hadn't even attended the Convention) and deciding that the vote for or against the Constitution would be done in state ratifying conventions, thus avoiding both state legislatures or a popular vote by the people (white men over 21 who owned property). This book is the story of the journey toward ratification in the states. I was fascinated.

[Frederick · Rating 1 out of 5]

I started reading this book on two different occasions, several years apart, but didn't finish it either time. There is no doubt that the book is well researched and offers some interesting insights into the debate surrounding the ratification of the constitution. But the book bogs down in its description of the ratification process in each state and in the detailed descriptions of the players and their arguments for and against ratification. Constitutional scholars may find this level of granularity interesting and necessary but most readers, even those who enjoy history, will not.

[David Eppenstein · Rating 4 out of 5]

Not a book for everyone. This is a rather long history of how our constitution was ratified in the various state conventions held after Philadelphia. There is a lot of very interesting detail and intrigue that may not be to the liking of the casual reader but for an avid American history lover you'll eat this up.

[Mark Singer · Rating 5 out of 5]

Pauline Maier wrote a very detailed yet readable account of the the ratification process of the US Constitution. As she wrote in the forward, there are many books written on how the Constitution was created in the summer of 1787, but not so much on the how ratification was achieved. Federalist versus Anti-Federalist, the war of the presses, politics at the state conventions; it's all here.

[Bill · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is a fascinating book about the ratification of the Constitution. The author, Pauline Maier, states in her preface that this is one of the few books whose sole topic is the ratification of the Constitution in all thirteen of the original states. Given the importance of this event it seems unusual that it took so long for someone to write this book. A very important tool that made it possible is The Documentary History of the Ratification of the Constitution. This project which is being done by the Wisconsin Historical Society began in 1976. At the time this book was written twenty-one volumes had been completed. It is anticipated that the completed work will be thirty-one volumes. The author states that without this collection it is doubtful she could have written this book.
The author tells the story with a sense of real life immediacy which imparts to the reader the excitement and suspense of living through the events as they happened. Ms. Maier attributes this perspective to the use of an idea she first heard in a lecture by Barbara Tuchman when she was in graduate school. A writer can build suspense in telling a story even if the reader knows how the story turned out so long as the writer never mentions the outcome until it happens at the proper point in the story. The author's use of this idea with a wealth of carefully selected primary sources makes the historical narrative come alive for the reader just as a great artist is able to convey an experience with a two dimensional representation. The author's skill maintains this level of involvement for the reader throughout the book.
The author begins with the story of George Washington's decision to attend the Constitutional Convention. Washington is hesitant to attend the convention because he has told the Society of Cincinnati that he will not attend their meeting in Philadelphia the first Monday of May 1787. The membership of the Society is divided on the question of hereditary membership and while Washington is opposed to this idea he does not want to confront many of his old friends who support it. His decision to attend the convention provides an encapsulated debate over the need for a new form of government for the country. After the Constitution is signed the author returns to Washington as he follows the beginning of the ratification process.
Prior to the state conventions a variety of newspaper articles and pamphlets begin the "war of written words" which combine to give us many of the ideas discussed during the time of ratification. The author points out that the writings were done largely on a local level. Today we may think that the Federalist papers were read across the country. Actually several states had ratified the Constitution before they began publication. They were primarily read in New York City and did not gain a wider audience until they were published in book form. The men who wrote for and against the Constitution showed a good understanding of the issues involved and command of a wide variety of sources dealing with those issues. Some of the questions they found important such as the presence of a standing army during peacetime are not as important to us today. One other issue they discussed, the "necessary and proper" clause in the powers of Congress, is debated in cases before the present Supreme Court. I doubt the present Congress could carry on a debate about the Constitution at the level shown during the period covered in this book.
Several of the states determined their decision on the Constitution on strictly local political issues. Delaware was the first state to vote for ratification and did so after only four days of debate. They wanted to end the taxes imposed by Pennsylvania on goods they imported from Philadelphia. The last state to ratify the Constitution was Rhode Island on May 29, 1790. By that time the national government had passed a bill prohibiting the twelve other states from trading with Rhode Island. Rhode Island was opposed to slavery and the slave trade and wished to continue to print paper money which is prohibited to the states by the Constitution.
I found the debates in the Virginia and New York conventions very interesting. Virginia elected a group of delegates that were evenly split on the question of ratification. James Madison and Patrick Henry were key figures in the debates. The author does not provide a flattering portrayal of Patrick Henry. He was a great orator but not well educated or knowledgeable about the law. She had several pithy quotes from Thomas Jefferson who loathed Henry. Madison was the great mind. The force of his knowledge and reasoning was irresistible to many.
When Virginia and New York began their conventions only eight states had ratified the Constitution. Each state felt theirs' could be the deciding vote. New York had elected a group of delegates strongly opposed to the Constitution. George Clinton, the Governor of New York, felt the Constitution created a consolidated government which he strongly opposed. Alexander Hamilton was strongly in favor and was a brilliant and energetic debater.
The suspense of the vote in the Virginia convention was palpable. Those opposed had argued for a strong list of amendments to be adopted before the Constitution could be ratified. Delegates from what is now Kentucky were strongly opposed to the Constitution. Ratification was passed by ten votes and numerous amendments were recommended to be included. Shortly after their vote the Virginia convention learned that New Hampshire had been the ninth state to vote for ratification. The Virginia vote had not been as critical as the members thought at the time. The New York convention learned of the votes of the New Hampshire and Virginia conventions before their final votes. They had a choice to either ratify or stay out of the union. Many of the New York delegates still opposed the Constitution. Led by Melancton Smith a group of Anti-Federalists compromised and voted for ratification with a list of recommended and not conditional amendments.
The author covered all these events and more in great detail. She introduced me to many previously unknown delegates to the conventions who played critical roles. A short chapter at the end tells how the lives of many of the delegates ended. James Wilson, a prominent delegate in the Pennsylvania convention, died broken and alone at the age of fifty-five. He had served two stints in debtor's prison while an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court.
The Constitutional Convention was empowered by Congress to amend the Articles of Confederation. Instead they created a completely new government which was eventually accepted by the country. After the Constitution was ratified those who had opposed it felt bound to support it. The author does a brilliant job of describing the process that led to this result but she does not address what forces led to the acceptance of the drastic changes proposed in the Constitution. Was it simply a combination of the prestige of the convention delegates, led by George Washington, and the obvious need for improvements in the government? Or was it the collective genius of the American people aided by Providence?

[John Nordin · Rating 4 out of 5]

It's our story.

It's our story, citizens of the United States, but we have converted it into a simplistic myth. Maier shows us the details, the messiness, the fears and fights - and after it is done, we have a more interesting story than when we started.

She goes through the battle for ratification, state by state, giving time to the proponents and opponents alike. This means some degree of repetition of arguments, but that is inevitable.

What is fascinating with this and most good history is to try to get inside the minds of people and see how differently they saw things. What they worried about was much different than our issues.

Here are some of the things that emerge from her narrative:
- there was significant opposition to the constitution and its passage was by very close margins in some states. Rhode Island didn't come in until after Washington was installed as president and only in response to a threatened economic embargo if they didn't ratify. Some in a few states thought staying out of the union and going it alone would be just fine.
- the proponents of the constitution were active in manipulating press coverage to create a favorable climate for the debate
- the Federalist Papers had little impact on the debate outside of New York
- reasons to oppose the constitution revolved around the federal government's taxing power, the insufficiency of the number of representatives in the House, the excessive length of terms for national office holders, and the power of Congress to control aspects of how states managed elections. The absence of an executive council to advise the President was also a concern to some.
- proponents clearly intended to set up a strong federal government with sufficient power to operate independently and to secure the reputation of the U.S. in the world.
- George Washington took almost no part in the ratification debates
- Patrick Henry was one of the most forceful opponents of ratification
- opponents were fearful the constitution set up a tyranny that might well abolish the state governments
- we've all heard that agreeing to a bill of rights was the price of adoption, but few used the term, and the amendments proposed by state conventions bore little resemblance to the ten we now know as the Bill of Rights

[Cody Bloom · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book details the various ratification conventions that in the words of George Mason are to either take it or leave it in regard to the proposed Federal Constitution. 13 very distinct ratification conventions take place that all have commonalities of where you sit is where you stand. As in most political debates in the USA there is a dividing line of rural/urban with rural people tending to be more Anti while urban being Federalist.

Commonalities in this book include, self interest, saving the union, and making the United States respectable. Self interest abounds in this text. Are you a state that wants a strong standing army to repel Indian attacks (Georgia), ratify the constitution. Are you tired of paying taxes to large states(New Jersey) ratify the constitution. New York and Virginia by and large ratify the constitution to save the union of the states despite the fact that there are very powerful interests in the Anti column such as Patrick Henry, George Clinton and Melancton Smith. Finally, in the wake of Shay’s rebellion and a multitude of states not wanting to pay the revolutionary war debts, George Washington urges ratification to protect the respectability of this be nation.

The final part of this book that draws very true is how do former revolutionaries form governments and govern. The revolutionary experience brings up many common issues with the constitution such as congress interfering in state elections, the power to lay direct taxes, terms of office for house, senate and Presidency. Not having a true separation of powers. The allowance of a perpetual standing army.

In the end we obviously ratify the constitution and it has stood for 200+ years. Patrick Henry did once say, If the United States could make nations tremble, would that constitute happiness and secure liberty? What men of modest wealth who made up the mass of Americans wanted was not national power and glory but to enjoy the fruits of their labor and the company of their family in peace and security.

Did the constitution eventually help the common person to enjoy said fruits more fully of sap the fruits of the common man.

[Jim · Rating 5 out of 5]

If you're a history generalist, looking for a broad-based overview of the lives and times of our founding generation, this book will not satisfy, despite the prominence of several luminaries (Washington, Madison, Hamilton, et al). However, for those who are looking for a more targeted examination of a seminal event (really, series of events) that created the foundation of American government for the past two-plus centuries, as well as a great summation of the debates that informed the understanding of the people who gave the Constitution its legal force, and therefore its meaning.

The book's structure is chronological, and starts with the immediate aftermath of the Constitutional Convention, and the reactions around the country to that convention's work. Some were outraged that an assembly called to propose modifications to the Articles of Confederation, which almost everyone agreed needed to be fixed, came out proposing an entirely different system of government. Others were thrilled at the chance to begin anew. But the first wicket that needed to be passed was for Congress, which was the seat of government under the Articles, to submit the new Constitution to the states for ratification. This was not a huge barrier, as most representatives were pretty fed up with the impotence of Congress under the AoC. Ms. Maier then takes the story to the state conventions.

The debates of the conventions were important for a number of reasons, and since we know, in the early 21st century, the outcome of these debates, the really interesting points center on how they came out. The first few states, like Delaware, Pennsylvania and New Jersey, were all pretty gung-ho to call their conventions and ratify quickly. In fact, the treatment of the opposition in PA, which was pretty decidedly in the minority, was a major factor in the subsequent debates in Massachusetts, Virginia and New York. The leading proponents of ratification, James Wilson and Thomas McKean (both veterans of the Declaration of Independence debates and, in Wilson's case, a major architect of the Constitution itself)tended to be very condescending and disrespectful to those who were opposed, and generally didn't give the opposition's views much consideration. This created bad feelings all around, which later conventions attempted to avoid procedurally.

The structure of the book, going state by state, creates a tension that notionally shouldn't exist given that we know the outcome, but the writing was very effective in this sense. Ms. Maier gives very fair attention to the arguments on both sides, and the various written debates that proceeded the actual conventions, the town meetings that elected the representatives to the conventions, and brief-but-useful backgrounds on the major players in each debate. While folks like Madison and Hamilton pop up throughout the book as they try to keep tabs on different happenings, they really only take center stage in the conventions where they participated- and even there, only share the spotlight with well-known opponents like Patrick Henry and George Clinton. Crucially, Maier gives great attention to lesser-known (but incredibly significant) personalities like William Findley, Melancton Smith, and Rufus King.

The true impact of the structure comes in seeing how momentum to ratify in later conventions built as more states approved the Constitution, how arguments from, say the Massachusetts debate (on both sides) were borrowed, sharpened and extended in Virginia or New York, and how winning over skeptics, of which there were many, eventually required new tactics. for example, Massachusetts was the first state to ratify with "recommended" amendments, but almost all subsequent conventions adopted the practice, and many of them would likely have failed to ratify without them. Indeed, some of the greatest opponents of the new Constitution (like the aforementioned Henry and Clinton, along with future president James Monroe) did not consider them adequate, wanting the amendments to be adopted prior to ratification. The New York convention, it is clear, would almost certainly have rejected the Constitution but for the fact that ten states had already ratified, thus putting the new government into effect (it required 9 of the 13), and making the choice one of staying in the Union or being left to its own devices. Even then, it was very close, and North Carolina and Rhode Island didn't join the fold until 1789 and 1790, respectively.

The main objection to the Constitution at the time was that it gave too much power to the central government at the expense of the states, which were regarded better safeguards of liberty because they could have greater representation of the people. The arguments put forward in favor generally sought to allay these fears, and it's critically important to understand these debates, and how they were won, because too often we forget that the Revolution was fought primarily to safeguard the rights of the individual as understood in the Enlightenment era, however imperfectly practiced in the United States at the time. The chief concern of the people was a government that could become despotic, and would imagine that the people's rights came from the government, rather than pre-existing independently.
the Federalists generally sought to assure opponents that a democratic republic with limited, enumerated powers would derive all of its power from the people, and could not therefore remove their rights without being answerable to them. Nonetheless, it was generally agreed (by both sides) that some sort of Bill of Rights should be enacted to safeguard those rights against government abuses of power. As we examine the meaning of the Constitution in our own time, it worth remembering that the legal basis for the Constitution rests upon these ratifying conventions, and that their understanding of the powers granted thereunder, and their limitations, is what, like any law, binds future citizens and governments until the law is changed under the correct legislative (and Constitutional) procedure for making those changes.

Ms. Maier drives her narrative with perhaps too much detail at times, lingering on, for instance, procedural aspects of the conventions for too long, in my opinion. However, overall this book was a masterful and comprehensive look at an incredibly important juncture in the infancy of our new nation, and contained many insights that even a fairly careful student of this period will find new and refreshing. Overall, an outstanding work.

[Ted Hunt · Rating 4 out of 5]

My "4" rating is the average of the "5" that I give this book for its scholarship, research, organization, and writing, and the "3" for its accessibility to a general reader of American history books. Maier is one of great historians of the Revolutionary period, and this book is a fitting reflection of her abilities to bring the reader inside the debates over the incredibly weighty questions surrounding our founding. Her books are about real people, doing their best to create a country seemingly out of thin air. It was very interesting to read about the issues that threatened to undermine the efforts to ratify the new Constitution, issues that we often are still debating today (the equal representation in the Senate is probably the best example). I was also impressed-and jealous-of a time when the "losers" of the ratification fights did not resist the outcome, but instead often (if not usually) worked to insure the success of the new government. But I must say that the book, for me at least, dragged. The author dissected every single one of the 13 ratification battles, highlighting each and every point of contention, and since the various conventions often argued about the same questions, there was a fair bit of repetition. At one point, Massachusetts politician Henry Knox complained about New York State's "tedious debate" over the Constitution, and I said to myself "tell me about it." In short, I would say that the book would serve as a very useful source of material when doing research about the fight over ratification, but for the general reader, it might be quite a challenge to read cover to cover.

[Matt Schuneman · Rating 4 out of 5]

I'm still somewhat surprised that the author was able to make a topic this esoteric and seemingly distant be a pretty compelling read, which it was overall. I found myself shocked that I had no idea how close some of these votes were and how narrowly the Constitution was ratified - thanks for nothing, high school social studies! - and Ms. Maier does a good job of maintain the drama and uncertainty of the time come through, even though we all know the ultimate result.

That said, there was still room for improvement. The attention to detail and commitment to the chronological advancement of the debates could feel laborious. It didn't always seem necessary to recount day-by-day, paragraph-by-paragraph, some of the convention's proceedings, especially after the overall themes had been established by earlier debates. This bogged down the narrative at points. I would have preferred a little more time spent up front in the context of the Philadelphia Convention - while I understand the rationale for putting bounds on that part of the story and not dwelling there, it would have helped to know more about those proceedings, particularly from the point of view of those who ended up in state conventions - and on the amendments that were then added on via the first Congress, several of which seemed to come out of nowhere relative to the topics that were front of mind in the majority of the ratification debates.

[Bill Tyroler · Rating 5 out of 5]

Standout telling of the ratification of the Constitution. It was far from a foregone conclusion -- a convention to "amend" the Articles of Confederation was turned by far-sighted individuals into a concerted effort to replace it with ... what? They were writing on a blank slate. Then, each state in turn had to call conventions and pass -- or reject -- the effort. Rhode Island, adamantly opposed to slavery, originally rejected the document but in the end had no choice but to come around (it could hardly have succeeded as a separate state, let alone after several cities threatened to secede and join the new union). North Carolina, too, initially rejected, but that seemed to have been more a tactical maneuver, to help leverage support for passage of a Bill of Rights. Speaking of which, the first 10 amendments weren't termed the "Bill of Rights," until John Bingham did so, during Reconstruction; that, notwithstanding various states' terming similar provisions declaration of rights. (Gerald Magliocca, incidentally, has a number of interesting posts on the bill of rights, at Concurring Opinions: https://concurringopinions.com/?s=bin....) What were some of the biggest hangups (other than slavery)? Some of the same things that continue to pester the electorate: term limits, tax policy, federal encroachment on state authority.

[Jdb · Rating 3 out of 5]

3.5 stars…the author does a nice job of breathing life into this rather dull & tedious subject, given a lack of formal detailed recording of most states’ ratifying convention proceedings. There are numerous nuggets of surprise which make a worthwhile read (for example Rhode Island never sent delegates to original Constitutional Convention & only ratified after all other 12 states had done so, essentially deciding not to go it alone; also, 3 states never actually ratified the first 10 amendments until 1939 !)

A major theme was the highly politicized nature of the ratification process in nearly every state, sometimes with questionable tactics by supporters (Pennsylvania & others). It is obvious that severe opposition existed in a number of states & it took persistent persuasive efforts by men like Madison to pull the Constitution across the finish line.

My biggest disappointment was the absence of a thorough discussion about pros/cons of the first ten amendments, many of which are controversial today but not then or vice versa. For example, the author said nothing about the 2nd amendment, which is a firestorm in 2023.

One of most hotly debated clauses in 1788 was Article V. Section 4, which has essentially been dormant until Democrats recently raised it as an issue following 2020 election (Thanks to the orange haired man).

[Harron68 · Rating 4 out of 5]

Phew!!!! orerous, a real tuff slog to get through. Quotations in 1700s "lawyerese" were the hardest to understand. Most of the quotes come from letters written (and notes taken at meetings) by the founding fathers and those who participated in each state's separate ratification convention.
Very detailed, but the gist of the debates was whether a constitution would bring a loss of rights and perhaps a new king or a government "of the people."
Some states quickly approved, but getting to the 9 of 13 majority for it was a struggle. What became clear was the need of personal rights for citizens spelled out in a "bill of rights." The conflict was if ratification should be proceeded with first the rights guarantees, or the expectation (faith) that amendments would follow ratification. After much debate, that compromise was gained and states (New York had a real battle) approved.
The book tells all the inside politics of rural regions versus cities. We can see today, the conflict of states' rights against national needs goes on and on. Without state govts being closer to citizens, there would be no U.S. They were a guarantor of public opinion.
Enough time spent, sorry for the length. A conditional 4 stars, depending on your interest and patience in our most vital document, and a model for other nations to learn from and build upon.