The Summer of 1787: The Men Who Invented the Constitution

Whle I find the story of the writing of the Constitution fascinating, this book was a very slow read. I think such a large topic like this is difficult to fit in such a thin book, and therefore, the book is somewhat confusing, and a lot seems glossed over. It would have also been helpful to highlight how the constitution is now compared to how it turned out then, for clarity's sake. Given that the title of the book is "The Men Who Invented the Constitution," it would have been nice for Stewart to have expanded more on the characters and made the story a bit more human, as the majority of the book focuses on the constitutional debates. But, if you are looking for a brief synopsis of the major debates that formed the Constitution, then this book is a good start. Plus, Stewart gives a good feel for the atmosphere. All in all, a decent book, but not spectacular.

have not completed the book yet.

This book is very well researched and very well written. The author neither glorifies the framers nor disparages them. Rather, he mostly lets the facts speak for themselves. Among those facts were the compromises over slavery, including the three-fifths compromise in which a slave (who could not vote) was to be counted as three-fifths of a white person for purposes of apportioning the numbers of Representatives allotted to each state in the House of Representatives. The effects of the three-fifths clause also carried over into the election of the President, since the number of electors for each state in the electoral college was based on the total number of that state's Representatives and Senators. Indeed, one of the reasons for the electoral college was that it would incorporate the three-fifths ratio. A direct popular vote for president, which was supported by James Wilson, James Madison, and a few other delegates, would not have given the South that extra boost in selecting the president.David O. Stewart observes that some sort of compromise over slavery was necessary if a union of all the states was to be formed. However, in the last chapter of his book (pages 261-62), Stewart delineates some of the historical consequences of the compromises embedded in the original Constitution:"Most obviously, preservation of the slave trade meant the continued importation of many thousands of Africans in chains. The Fugitive Slave Clause gave slave owners a critical tool for enforcing their dominion over the people they held in bondage."Though less obvious in its impact, the three-fifths ratio rankled for decades. By granting additional representation based on slaves, that clause enhanced southern power, as reflected in many measures:"• Ten of the first fifteen presidents were slave owners."• John Adams would have won a second term as president but for twelve electoral votes cast for Jefferson (and Burr) that represented southern slaves (counted at three-fifths of their real number)."• For twenty-seven of the nation’s first thirty-five years, southerners sat as Speaker of the House of Representatives."• Nineteen of the first thirty-four Supreme Court justices were slaveholders."Because of the three-fifths ratio, Virginia in the 1790s had six more congressmen than did Pennsylvania even though both states had roughly the same number of free inhabitants. The three-fifths ratio gave slave states fourteen extra seats in the House in 1793, twenty-seven additional seats in 1812, and twenty-five added seats in 1833."Those extra votes meant that when crises erupted over slavery in 1820, in 1850, and in 1856, slave owners in positions of power ensured that the political system did not challenge human bondage. House seats created by the three-fifths rule allowed Missouri to be admitted as a slave state in 1820, and ensured enactment of the 1840 gag rule that choked off antislavery petitions to Congress."Stewart explains that "[h]istorians disagree over the terrible bargains that the Convention struck over slavery. Some insist that the delegates did the best they could under the circumstances." However, "[o]thers counter that the northern delegates caved in too easily to implausible southern threats to abandon the Union." Specifically, Georgia and South Carolina, the states that most demanded concessions to slavery, probably could not have survived outside the union as result of their respective dire circumstances. The author concludes that "[f]or all they have been celebrated, the delegates bear responsibility for having entrenched slavery ever deeper, for not even beginning to express disapproval of it." Ibid., 262-63.But Stewart is careful in his examination of the history of the Constitutional Convention. He observes, in more than one place, that the New England states, which benefited economically from the slave trade due to their shipping interests, were more than willing to accommodate Georgia and South Carolina on slavery. Strangely, it was James Madison and George Mason, both slaveholding Virginians, who had the most compunctions about slavery. Although Thomas Jefferson, another slaveholding Virginian, was also on record against this practice, he did not attend the Convention because he was representing the United States in Paris at the time. But although Madison, Mason, and Jefferson were conflicted about slavery, they never (with a few exceptions) actually freed their own slaves. That was the legacy of another Virginian, George Washington, whose Will contained provisions that led to the emancipation of his slaves within two years after his death. Washington was the presiding officer of the Convention. Although he spoke little, he was respected by virtually all of the other delegates.I strongly recommend this book.

We are so fortunate to have had so many well written books about this time appear in the last few years.So few of us in America really understand what the Constitution says and what it means, and fewer of us know the story of the struggles to stitch together thirteen loosely confederated states into a country.Stewart has created a gripping narrative that paints the personal dramas these men had to navigate to establish the United States. There were many times I found myself anxious about whether the effort would succeed, even though we all know how it turned out. It is fascinating to learn the pressures and the priorities of the different people and groups that had to come together and reach some resolution in order for our contry to be born. And even more to learn of the amazing individuals who played pivotal roles in that miracle; both the ones who remain famous (I am more amazed each time I hear about how George Washington somehow managed to so delicately balanced his role to lead the country without permitting himself to accept the royal position so many wanted to give him - if only any of today's politicians could learn from his example), and the many whose accomplishments have been all but lost to today's students.I believe textbooks, especially history texts, are written with the express intention of pursuading kids to hate the topic. That they can pursuade curious young minds that events like the American Revolution are boring is a tragic but mighty feat. Stewart, who clearly has a deep interest in and love for the topic, is the perfect antithesis.

Lucid, compelling, and one of the best books available on how our Constitution was created in the hot summer of 1787. So many delicious details included on each of the players makes you feel as if you're sitting beside them. Too many books turn this affair into a dreary academic exercise. The author, a DC lawyer, has done great research and written an amazing account of this historical event. Well worth reading, he has made history alive on these pages.

Before reading The Summer of 1787 I really knew little about the founding of our country. If asked, I would have said a bunch of men met in a stuffy room in Philadelphia (was it a back room?) and did the deal. They were the "founding fathers." I would have guessed that they were well educated and that they had money and powerful connections. Most importantly, I would have said that they created a brilliant new blueprint for a government that--theoretically, at least--left the ultimate power with the people. This last and most important bit was what I had always been told. Stewart's book showed me that this is a cliche that perpetuates an unthinking patriotism about a document that was both brilliant and flawed, that was the product of ingenious compromise and that was, at the same time, morally compromised. The Summer of 1787 also replaces founding father icons with real people, some worthy of respect and some not so worthy. The major players, the ones debating (and synthesizing the Constitution through debate!) were Washington's one-time friend George Mason, the studious notetaker James Madison, shrewd pro-slavery advocate John Rutledge, Connecticut's canny Roger Sherman, the peg-legged abolitionist Governeur Morris, and a newly-minted Scots-American named James Wilson. No doubt I have missed a few other delegates who made important contributions, but these are the ones who remain in my memory after reading Stewart's history. Knowing that he would become the country's first executive, George Washington moderated the convention debates and, for the most part, wisely restrained from offering his own opinions. Ben Franklin, old and ailing, relied on his fellow Pennsylvania delegate James Wilson to convey occasional but important suggestions to the other delegates. Stewart details the problems the delegates faced during that sweltering summer and tells how they solved them. Most of these problems revolved around creating a government that would share power as equitably as possible between large states and small ones. Since state populations were taken into account in schemes for balancing power, the question of whether slaves could be counted as people became an important one. Counting each slave as three fifths of a human being was a compromise that solved immediate problems and "united" the thirteen states, but it also proved to be one that led to the horror of a civil war and the unrest and division we still experience today. We hear a great deal of rhetoric today about what it means to be an American. For me, it was helpful to read a book that returns to the summer when America was born, to the details of the U.S. Constitution because it is that document and not any car bumper slogan that constitutes who we are. It is not a dead document. It has been changed (amended) multiple times. It is well to remember that as we move forward and to revere those who piloted our ship of state in the early days, but we are now the ones holding the tiller, and we must continue to fine tune the Constitution to fit the needs of a new world.

Squabbles among the states were prevalent. Maryland and Virginia argued about tolls and taxes and fishing on their borders. Connecticut and Pennsylvania fought over land. New York and New Hampshire fought over Vermont. New Jersey despised New York's taxes on shipping. Madison believed in 1785 that the states could never regulate trade fairly. Only a national government could do this. But the Articles of Confederation did not allow this. Madison lamented that no money came into the federal treasury, trade was terrible, and the states had problems with paper money. Madison and Hamilton and just 10 more met in Annapolis and issued a call for a new convention to meet in Philadelphia. Other problems included Britain occupying forts in the west and Spain closing the Mississippi.Shays Rebellion had neighbors warring with each other. Farmers raged at merchants who controlled the state government and issued taxes to pay off the war debt, confiscating farms when payment was unable to be made. Adams had predicted that establishing a national government would be ¨the most intricate, the most important, the most dangerous and delicate business.¨ Four months after Shays Rebellion America would create the longest lasting document in self-rule.Jefferson believed in rebellion. Washington said this was proof of the need of a strong national government. The states had different economies. New England depended on fishing and shipping. The Middle States, New York, New Jersey, Delaware and Pennsylvania, grew grain and had infant industries. The South had slave based agriculture and depended on exports of tobacco from Virginia and Maryland and rice and indigo from South Carolina. Some Americans proposed dissolving the Confederation and creating 4 nations. Washington and Madison believed the states had too much power and the national not enough. Congress had issued unsecured bills of credit which became worthless, ¨not worth a Continental.¨ Madison excoriated the states for issuing paper money. States with ports taxed shipments to bordering states. The only source of funds were property taxes and poll taxes. The states could not pay congress without them. But the people could not pay. Some states simply did not pay Congress. Massachusetts chose to confiscate the land for failure to pay property taxes and incited a rebellion. The states refused their obligations to the Confederation Congress. There was no executive nor courts. Congress managed everything by its one state one vote rule.12 of the states sent 74 delegates to the Convention. Rhode Island refused when they learned they would not be permitted to issue paper money. Only 55 made it to Philadelphia and only 30 attended the full four months of deliberations. Jefferson and Adams did not attend as they were in France and Britain respectively. On May 14 Washington and Madison walked to the Pennsylvania State House, today called Independence Hall, for the start of the Convention. The Virginia Plan was the basis for the deliberations. It called for a legislature, the House, to control the entire government. The people would elect the House who would then choose the Senate and both bodies would select the executive and appoint all judges. 2 issues would cause problems. The big states sought to end one state one vote. The southern states wanted to count the slaves, as 40 % of their population was not free.James Wilson from Pennsylvania would make an alliance with the slave states to overturn one state one vote. Massachusetts, Virginia and Pennsylvania were the large states, all others small. It was a very long convention, leaving topics and returning to them many times. This was a question of democracy according to Wilson. ¨Are not the citizens of Pennsylvania equal to those of New Jersey?¨ They should have equal representation as votes should be allocated according to population. Wilson made a deal with South Carolina to support proportional representation. This is where the slaves would count for three fifths of a person. Elbridge Gerry tried to stop this rule. He was of medium stature, with a stutter and an eye that contracted and expanded. He said that slaves were bought and sold like cattle and therefore should not be counted. He lost the vote 9 to 2 as only New Jersey and Delaware voted against. Wilson and his alliance won yet another vote regarding the Senate. It too would be based on representation.Hamilton spoke up at the convention and made one of his major errors of his career. He said that democracy was not a good system of government because the people ¨seldom judge or determine right.¨ He said it is better to give power to the rich and well born. He wanted to eliminate the states and state government and have a strong national government. He then said that the British government, a monarchy, was the best in the world and nothing less would do in America. He said the chief executive should serve a life term.The delegates did not anticipate such a long stay in Philadelphia. Many suffered economically, borrowing money to cover expenses. But none left for financial reasons. Madison said the Constitution was the work of many people and not a single writer. He himself lost about 40 of 70 votes. The representation issue continued to cause dissension. Franklin proposed proportional representation in the House and equal votes in the Senate. Franklin disagreed with much of the Constitution in its final form. He was more inclined to democracy than many of the delegates. The one vote for the states in the Senate was the final outcome and the big states said that if this was not agreed to that there would have been no Constitution. In this way they sold it to their state assemblies. Madison wrote that ¨reconciling the larger states to the equality of the Senate is known to have been the most threatening (difficulty) that was encountered in framing the Constitution. A novel approach to new states was taken. Throughout history the conquerors enjoyed the spoils. But the convention agreed that new states would share in the same privileges as previous states. Mason, Wilson, and Madison led the delegates in these republican ideals. They would treat the West fairly. But Wilson then added the all-encompassing power to ¨make all laws that shall be necessary and proper¨ to carry out Congress's responsibilities. This essentially bypassed the enumerated powers. Hamilton used this like a magician. Of course we know that the Convention also established both national and state governments, separate, but with one superior over the other. General Pinckney of South Carolina boasted of the rights granted to protect slavery. The decision had been made that the legislature would choose the president, and then John Dickinson entered the room. The minutes were read to him as a courtesy and he insisted that the people should elect the President. The previous decision was reversed.Gerry was one of 3 who opposed the Constitution. He said that the government should not have a standing army. The ever silent Washington spoke up against him and carried the day. Mason did not like the aristocratic Senate, nor did he like the continuation of the slave trade. Randolph was always indecisive. None of the 3 liked the necessary and proper clause. And the convention made the unforgiveable error of not including a Bill of Rights. Patrick Henry in the Virginia ratifying convention railed against not having a bill of rights to defend the citizenry against the all-powerful Congress. Governor Morris wrote the preamble which has proven to be the best ever written of all the constitutions in the history of the world. Gerry would be Madison's vice in his second term, a position which he was against as he refused to sign the Constitution. The term gerrymandering comes from his salamander like division of voting districts. Mason's relation with Washington and Madison grew icy. Madison and Washington had a close working relationship when they left Philadelphia but it didn't last. In the first 15 years of the Constitution, 12 amendments were passed including the Bill of Rights. The twelfth fixed the mess regarding presidential elections. Hamilton manipulated the broken system.