Average Reviews:
(More customer reviews)Like so many elements of history, there is rampant ignorance or misunderstanding among the American public regarding the origins of our Constitution. Sadly, a significant majority surely have no concept whatsoever of the failed initial attempt at a United States government. More significantly, among the historically literate outside academic circles, there has been a common misperception of our Framers as a set of omniscient statesmen who shared a clear view of the ideal government and crafted a structure that remains unchanged in its essentials to this day. The purpose of Berkin's book is, through a focus on the papers of constitutional convention delegates, to provide insight into the reality behind these myths.
Her theses can be summarized primarily as follows: 1) the process by which the constitution was written was one involving sharply differing views, particularly as to the sharing of power between the individual states and the national government, substantial uncertainty and pessimism regarding the document's capacity to forestall tyranny and a great deal of compromise from strongly held principles, and 2) the character of the current US federal government would astonish the Framers in certain areas, most notably in the greatly expanded powers of the presidency.
Berkin makes a compelling case for both theses through her narrative discussion of the drivers behind the scheduling of the convention, the twisting progress of debate during the sixteen weeks in session, the fierce fight for ratification by the states and the inauguration of Washington as our first president. The major strength of the work is the illumination of the key roles played by delegates such as Gouverneur Morris, James Madison, James Wilson and Roger Sherman. Interesting anecdotes abound, such as the amorous successes of the one-legged Morris ("He scandalized the convention's proper New Englanders by his open philandering, although he won the admiration of the more worldly New Yorkers and South Carolinians, who marveled at the success in the boudoir of this fleshy middle-aged man hobbled by a wooden leg."), the alcohol-induced tirades of Luther Martin ("The nationalists were fortunate that Luther Martin did not do battle with them in a sober state") and the surprising nervousness of Washington during his inaugural address ("His hands trembling and his voice unsteady, ..." ).
The book is not without its weaknesses. On the quibbling end of the scale, the editing in several places leaves something to be desired. There are several instances of repetitive diction in juxtaposed sentences and the biographical snapshot of Charles Pinckney contains an obvious editing error. A more important shortfall is found in the overall style of the writing. While Berkin writes with admirable clarity and economy, her utilitarian approach lacks the literary style and flair for communicating the drama of great events found in the work of popular historians such as David McCullough and Barbara Tuchman. In those rare cases where she ventures into more dramatic narrative, her effort comes off as somewhat contrived and incongruous with the rest of the work.
Regarding the content of the book, its chief shortfall is the puzzling treatment of the role of Washington in the debates and, more importantly, in the ratification battles. Berkin makes it very clear that Washington privately was keenly supportive of the nationalists' agenda during the debates and of the resulting constitution that was submitted to the states for ratification. She also notes his unparalleled prestige in the fledgling country and the tremendous potential for influence that this implied. Despite this combination, Washington apparently played little or no role in the contentious debates. When, apparently for the first time during the entire sixteen weeks, he finally rises to express an opinion regarding a relatively minor change on the convention's final day, Berkin rather blandly explains that "up until this moment, he had felt his position in the president's (of the convention) chair required his silence." It seems difficult to believe, notwithstanding his procedural scruples, that he did not exert some degree of influence on key issues of disagreement, even if he chose the channel of private conversation and lobbying over public speech. The unexplored issue screams for further attention during the tenuous ratification process. Berkin states that "the usually stoic Washington made no effort to disguise his hopes for ratification. `I never saw him so keen for anything in my Life,' a Virginian told Thomas Jefferson." Yet there is no discussion of his active involvement in the ratification fight. Not even the crucial and hard fought battle in his home state of Virginia, an essential member for a viable United States, appears to have moved him to action. She strongly implies that Washington had the power to ensure approval yet does not explain his apparent unwillingness to do so. This seems an important omission.
Notwithstanding these faults, this is an enjoyable and educational read. It is certain to excite the reader's interest in exploring the lives of some of the more colorful delegates and, at a time when the United States is engaged in a very challenging effort to build a representative constitutional government in Iraq, it provides a reminder of the painful, challenging and contentious birthing process of our own polity.
Click Here to see more reviews about:
A Brilliant Solution: Inventing the American Constitution
Click here for more information about A Brilliant Solution: Inventing the American Constitution
