- Buy $50 in qualifying physical textbooks, get $5 in Amazon MP3 Credit. Here's how (restrictions apply)
FREE Two-Day Shipping for Students. Learn more |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||
Special Offers and Product Promotions
Frequently Bought Together
Product Details
Would you like to update product info or give feedback on images?
|
More About the Author
Discover books, learn about writers, read author blogs, and more.
Customer Reviews
|
Share your thoughts with other customers:
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Most Helpful Customer Reviews
6 of 8 people found the following review helpful:
4.0 out of 5 stars
A Third Person Historical Account by a Political Scientist,
By
This review is from: 1787: The Grand Convention (Paperback)
Overall, I found the book to be an interesting account of the men and the events of the Constitutional Convention at Philadelphia during the Summer of 1787. The first third of the book is spent by Rossiter providing a brief outline of the biographies of the 55 men who participated (or were nominated to participate) at the convention. Rossiter describes these men as the elites of the American colonial societies. In some cases his assignment is accurate, yet strangely in several cases, many of the men as he described were not elites at all. Generally, he was correct in this assignment, although most notably, he points out that the architect James Madison was clearly not. Like several other points the author makes, he seems to be conflicted and contradictory in his assessments of events and the men involved.
The middle third of the book is an account of the goings on of the convention. I found this portion of the book to be well researched and scholarly, but leaving me wanting for a more careful description of the actual dialogue (deliberations) of the men at the Grand Convention. Certainly this want is based on the fact that the only detailed account made of the proceedings was recorded by Madison and later acquired by the Library of Congress - but it still left me thinking it would be more interesting as the reader 230+ years later to be able to read the exact deliberations, the exact debate, the rhetoric, the negotiations during the convention, in order to more accurately understand what the intentions of the Framers were when establishing the excellent system of checks and balances the United States of America has enjoyed for more than 230 years. The short insights into the character of George Washington that Rossiter provides were quite interesting to me and I shall reflect on his actions and his style of management for some time to come. Rossiter portrays Washington as a sort of removed deity presiding over the convention as largely a silent witness to the debates, the negotiations, and rhetoric - only to intercede with the lightest or most appropriate gentlemanly exercise of his authority, in the genuine interest of the nation and in moving the convention to conclusion. The last third of the book is the account of the deliberations of the 13 states in accepting and ratifying the Constitution, with some liberal or progressive analysis by Rossiter. The injection of the progressive or liberal analysis by Rossiter is the only flaw (from my perspective/opinion) in the work. Rossiter takes the Hamiltonian position that the Framers intended for the Constitution to be interpreted liberally with respect to the powers of the new central and federal republic the Constitution provides for. Rossiter further asserts that the Framers had the progressive intent that the Constitution be adapted to meet the needs of future generations. I could not disagree more with this analysis, having the opinion that the Framers intention was to divide the authority of the new federal government, and assign the remaining unremunerated powers to the States and the People - not necessarily provide a liberal progressive form of governing. This is a conservative opinion in that the Framers intended the division and limitations on the federal power (the checks and balances and tripartite form of government) as a check on the personal ambitions of men and women who might intend to abuse the power of their federal offices. This "Grand Design" was based upon the colonial experiences with the King of England, his representatives in the new world (Lord Dunmore for one), and the injustice of the English governmental policies with respect to the colonial Americans. Further, to show Rossiter as being wrong about his assertion that the Framers of the Constitution were essentially liberal progressives (or at least in their intent) in drafting the document -- it is well known that the Constitution was not amended between the 12th and 13th Amendment for 61 years (between 1804 and 1865). The Civil War was a necessity to require the Emancipation Proclamation and the adoption of the 13th Amendment. Certainly if the Framers were liberal progressives in their intent in drafting the Constitution and that they expected that certain unresolved issues were intentionally left to future Congresses to work out, the outcome was quite different in that in the first one-quarter of the republic, there we almost no Amendments at all, except for the Bill of Rights (1791). Additionally, many of these so called liberal progressive intentioned men of the convention served in the subsequent Congresses, the Supreme Court, and in the executive branch - yet almost no significant Amendments to the Constitution occurred, until after the death of Lincoln. Rossiter admits that the 55 men of the convention might produce 55 different viewpoints and interpretations of their work anyway - which revealed to my opinion that Rossiter's assertion is biased. Rossiter reveals his provincial attitude and political leanings toward the colonial Americans who lived on the frontier of the time when he asserts in the text that he was of the opinion that these people would not have voted to ratify the Constitution since they were removed from the centers of learning, the centers of population near waterways - especially New York, New Haven, and Philadelphia - they did not have access to the printed news of the day that made an informed opinion. I found this opinion to be offensive to the spirit of the Revolution, especially since many of the men on the frontier served in the Continental Army and faithfully supported the war against the British. Even today, New Englanders often (though not always) make the assumption that only they have access to the information necessary to make sound decisions affecting the republic. This attitude is obviously unpatriotic and condescending on the face. Most of Rossiter's analysis is found to be conflicting and biased - and it is good that the text is largely a historical account, rather than political analysis. As a historical account, a good work, and worth reading. A thought provoking read in these times of trouble in our republic. The Constitution thankfully remains relevant more than 230 years later. We owe an enormous debt of gratitude to the Framers and the men and women who have worked to strengthen and preserve our republic.
1 of 1 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
A great read!,
By
Amazon Verified Purchase(What's this?)
This review is from: 1787: The Grand Convention (Paperback)
Rossiter made the events of that hot summer of 1787 come alive. The struggle for ratification of the Constitution was also covered well.
Share your thoughts with other customers: Create your own review
|
|
What Other Items Do Customers Buy After Viewing This Item?
Tags Customers Associate with This Product(What's this?)Click on a tag to find related items, discussions, and people.
|
Sell a Digital Version of This Book in the Kindle Store
If you are a publisher or author and hold the digital rights to a book, you can sell a digital version of it in our Kindle Store.
Learn more
Customer Discussions
|
This product's forum
Active discussions in related forums
Search Customer Discussions
|
Related forums
|
