The Constitutional Convention: A Narrative History from the Notes of James Madison (Modern Library Classics)

The average citizen does not know much about the United States Constitution, and knows even less about constitutional law. This is a lamentable fact. Yet if one desires insight into how the document on which our nation is founded came into being, I would suggest reading and studying James Madison's Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787. If this volume proves unmanageable, then my suggestion is to find a copy of a narrative history based primarily upon Madison's notes. The Constitutional Convention, by Edward J. Larson and Michael P. Winship, is such a book. It is both informative and easy to read.I came away from the book with several notable impressions. The strongest was that the men who attended the Constitutional Convention were hardly all geniuses, or even extraordinary statesmen for that matter. Gunning Bedford, Jr. and Jacob Broom of Delaware are examples. Bedford made the point that either the individual states or the national government could be sovereign, but not both. He was apparently unable to wrap his mind around the idea of federalism, where there are sovereigns within a sovereign. This is, of course, precisely the kind of system the Constitution established. Mr. Broom's participation was even less spectacular. He was a merchant and surveyor, who contributed only minimally to the Convention by seconding a motion. To both men's credit, they remained to the end of the Convention, which lasted almost four months, and signed the document that was ultimately crafted there.As you might guess, there was at least one delegate, William Blount of North Carolina, who was too busy trying to fill his own pockets to spend much time dedicated to fashioning a new nation. He was a liar and cheat, who was an atrocious scoundrel and the subject of the first impeachment trial ever conducted under the new Constitution. Larson and Winship do not mention him in their book, probably because he contributed nothing to the Convention's proceedings. He seems to have been cut from the same moral fabric as Aaron Burr, although fortunately not even approximating the latter's political success (Burr was almost elected President in 1800!).When reflecting upon the founders, one's mind tends to rest upon stellar figures such as Washington, Madison, Franklin, and Hamilton. Washington addressed the Convention only once, but his presence there insured its success. He was a heroic figure, whose immense honor and prestige held the at-times tense and chaotic Convention together. Madison was an erudite student of political theory, a mastermind who had prepared diligently for the Convention, sat up front so that he could hear clearly each and every speaker, took meticulous notes, and contributed enormous knowledge and wisdom to the effort. Franklin was the oldest delegate, but possessed enormous notoriety the world over. Another delegate wrote of him, "He is no speaker, nor does he seem to let politics engage his attention. He is, however, a most extraordinary man, and tells a story in a style more engaging than anything I ever heard . . . .[and] . . . possesses an activity of mind equal to a youth of twenty-five years of age." Hamilton was a vain and temperamental intellectual virtuoso, whose strong and unbalanced nationalist fervor turned off his fellow-delegates. Yet his observations and arguments were vibrant both in the Convention and, later, in the ratification effort.Also, not to be ignored were lesser known, but nonetheless brilliant men. James Wilson of Pennsylvania, George Mason and Edmund Randolph of Virginia, and Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, as well as a host of others, gave nobly of themselves at the Convention. Not to be overlooked in this category was Luther Martin of Maryland, a gifted attorney, who provoked much thought and provided much valuable insight to the Convention, although he was a nasty-tempered, slovenly, disgusting alcoholic. It is interesting that Gerry, Mason, Randolph, and Martin refused to sign the Constitution they were instrumental in producing. Mason and Martin even worked against its ratification.There were two genuinely unsung heroes at the Convention, Roger Sherman of Connecticut and Charles Pinckney of South Carolina. Sherman was a quite practical, prudent, and levelheaded individual, who was once introduced by Thomas Jefferson as a man who "never said a foolish thing in his life." This Connecticut delegate likewise keenly understood the art of compromise. His greatest contribution was the "Great (Connecticut) Compromise," which proposed that membership in the lower house of Congress be based upon proportional representation, while each state in the upper house have the same number of representatives. The Convention, it is safe to say, would have imploded without the benefit of Sherman's steady hand and of this compromise in particular.Pinckney, on the contrary, who was a bubbling fountain of ideas, supplied the terms "President," "House," and "Senate." He advanced many other winning suggestions as well, such as (1) that the legislature be bicameral; (2) that it have the power to coin money, call up the militia, and establish post offices; (4) that the presidency consist of a vigorous, single-person executive; (5) that he direct the military as its commander-in-chief; (6) that he present an annual State of the Union address; and (7) that the judiciary be appointed. This South Carolinian did not receive a full and positive review in Madison's notes on the Convention, probably because the two men did not have the best personal relationship and even later became political adversaries, running against each other for the presidency.It amazes me that all these eighteenth century framers, who were in numerous respects a diverse group, managed to overcome the many adversities of their situation and to work together for months to produce a magnificent document of liberty and limited government. Their deliberations were, for the most part, conversationally civil, intellectually candid and insightful, and unmistakably calculated to American interests. Compare these principled and dignified qualities to what we see in government at the present time - a chief executive who unilaterally modifies statutes or refuses to enforce them as he pleases, a Congress that is gridlocked, uncivil, and self-serving, and an unelected and unaccountable judiciary that peckishly legislates on important cultural issues.On the last day of the Convention, the 81-year old Benjamin Franklin arose to his feet and spoke to the Convention. He stated that the Constitution was not entirely to his liking, but that he was supporting it and would continue to do so. He predicted, in a way that now sends shivers up the spine, that the government created by the document "is likely to be well administered for a course of years, and can only end in despotism, as other forms have done before it, when the people shall become so corrupted as to need despotic government, being incapable of any other." Has our nation reached the point that old Ben described? Each reader may be the judge.

Plenty of flavor without drowning in details. Easy to read. Five out of five. !

Book used in Constitution Class as example of primary document fact verification. Madison's notes are the best original source for understanding how the Constitution was written and who said what.

Great book for the non-hardcore historian to get a sense of what notes Madison took down during the constitutional convention and the major issues debated without getting too far in to the proverbial weeds. Pretty easy read and the notes from the authors help to give a general sense of what was going on during that summer. Highly recommend for someone who wants to start learning of how the constitution was drafted and the major players involved.

larson and winship provide a very good accounting of the constitutional convention. i presume that all of madison's notes are accurate and complete, unless otherwise noted. editorial comments are helpful to this reader - aiding in the understanding of the process of the convention. while the authors provide an excellent annotated bibliography, i felt like, well, there was much missing from this piece. i wish that the authors might have begun with a couple of chapters on the political backdrop as well as the socioeconomic factors. you know, one of the things that i wonder, is this - of all the guys at the convention, who all went to the tavern afterward? to what extent did they discuss constitutional issues with family, aides ... what documents exist from each of the state legislatures that directed delegates addressing scope of authority / responsibility. what were the developments and publications that affected the delegates' thinking? this is a fine basic text but i guess i wanted a more comprehensive examination ...

By writing JUST Madison notes, we do not get an idea of what was saying by other founders; and also on how the Confederate Constitution was actually better by many of the representatives were as greedy as the Zionists were in for the Slave Trade.

James Madison's notes from the constitutional convention provide insights into the issues of th day. Much of the discussion involved slavery, which almost prevented th creation of a federal government. Whether slaves were people or property was not resolved. Also interesting was the skeptical view of the people's ability to choose good leaders or in stead be sways by demagogy.

Noy a thorough discussion. Madison was a freemason. Had knowledge of the Anderson Constitutions. Much of U.S. Constitution greatly influenced by this. .No discussion in book. A serious omission. Otherwise well-worth reading.

Very few Japanese, if any, know about the US constitution. For example, a commercial critic named Itsuo Kohama (an elderly Japanese who has written quite a few books) says in his book that the constitution doesn’t name so many human rights as the constitution of Japan does. In fact, he doesn’t even know the existence of the Bill of Rights and other amendments to the constitution, which I confirmed by asking him directly. He searched for the US constitution on the Net and, alas, only found the constitution (without the amendments, in Japanese version Wikidedia) of which making process this extraordinary book deals with.The surprising fact for me was that the Philadelphia Convention was originally called only to amend the Articles of Confederation in order to reinforce the unified executive power given and created by the separated colonies. Therefore, making an entirely new constitution was, strictly speaking, above the authority of the convention itself. Although one delegate pointed out this critical fact, it didn’t stay on the table of argument even for a short while.How do you think about this procedural illegality? Was it a trivial thing or a grave flaw in the history of the United States - the Gesellschaft which established the principle of DUE PROCESS by none other than the Constitution itself?Well, I believe the latter is true. What about you?