The Beginnings of National Politics: An Interpretive History of the Continental Congress [Paperback]

Professor Jack N. Rakove (Author)

Product Details

• Paperback: 512 pages
• Publisher: The Johns Hopkins University Press (August 1, 1982)
• Language: English
• ISBN-10: 0801828643
• ISBN-13: 978-0801828645
• Product Dimensions: 8.1 x 5.3 x 1.2 inches
• Shipping Weight: 1.2 pounds
• Average Customer Review: 4.3 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (3 customer reviews)
• Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #1,153,651 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)

More About the Author

JACK RAKOVE, the William Robertson Coe Professor of History and American Studies and a professor of political science at Stanford University, is one the most distinguished historians of the early American republic. He is the author of, among other books, Original Meanings: Politics and Ideas in the Making of the Constitution, which won the Pulitzer Prize in 1997. He frequently writes op-ed articles for the New York Times, the Washington Post, and other major newspapers. He has been an expert witness in Indian land claims litigation and has testified in Congress on impeachment.

Customer Reviews

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

6 of 6 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars A classic that needs to be reissued or updated, March 2, 2007

By 

greg taylor (Portland, Oregon United States) - See all my reviews
(VINE VOICE)    (TOP 1000 REVIEWER)   

This review is from: The Beginnings of National Politics: An Interpretive History of the Continental Congress (Hardcover)

I think the first reviewer misses the point of Rakove's first book a bit. He is not trying to bring the the members of the Continental Congress to life. Indeed, he is not really writing a narrative history of the Congress. Note the subtitle: An Interpretive History of the Continental Congress. He is exploring the major problems and issues of the CC during its existance from the early 1770s to 1787.
He divides that history into four distinct periods. The first period started with the attempts to move the leadership of the resistance to the British from local revolutionary committees to a national Congress. Rakove sees this first period as ending with the signing of the alliance with France. The second period focused on the debates surrounding the drafting and ratification of The Articles of Confederation (1781). Rakove's third period covers the final war years. This period saw the rise of an early partisan split in the CC caused by both sectional and personal differences. For example, the conflict between Silas Deane and Arthur Lee both of whom were members of the diplomatic corps caused enormous problems within the CC. This period saw questions being raised about the status of the Congress under the Articles. The final period is the post-war period when the reputation of Congress began to suffer due to its inability to effectively lead the nation on issues of national import. Sectional differences (such as those that arose over the status of the Mississippi during negotiations w/ Spain) were beginning to lead to talks of spliting the country into seperate smaller confederations.
So the first reviewer is right in that Rakove's organization is chronological. However, do not come to Rakove's book expecting a typical narrative covering all of the issues that the Congress dealt with. There is relatively little, for example, about the long process of getting states like Virginia to give up their claims to western lands and agreeing to give them to the Congress to settle in the national interest. I think Rakove's interest is largely to explain how we moved from the early and local revolutionary committees to the Constitutional Convention of 1787.
He is very good on this development. His discussions of the early organizing of the Congress, of the debates within the Congress to on how rapidly to move toward independence, of the subsequent calls out to the states to begin to reorganize their governments under new constitutions embodying republican principles is outstanding. He makes insightful observations about the anomalous theoretical status of Congress itself. Was it a legislature or an executive organization or some hybrid?According to the Whig theory of the time, it was both and therefore it was not to be trusted. It was an old Whig standby to not have the same branch of government control the purse and the sword. That was seen to inevitably lead to despotism. Many Americans became suspicious of the Congress' attempts to develop their own income (and thus not be dependent on requisitions from the states) as a plot to aggrandize power. This excellent point explains some of the behavior of the states during the post-war period especially.
Rakove is also very good on some more personal issues. Much of the inadequacies of the Congress during the late 1770s and the 1780s can be seen as being the result of the fact that no one yet saw politics as a career. These men were merchants, shippers, lawyers and farmers. In many ways, the time they spent at Congress they saw largely as time away from their families, friends and business. In the early years of the war, with its burst of patriotic fervor, that was okay. As the war dragged on and then the peace came, attendance in Congress became more of a burden. During the 1780s, it was frequently difficult to even achieve a quorum to do business.
Rakove has one more theme that I think deserves especial mention. He feels that in many ways, the failings of the Continental Congress and the Articles operated in such a way as to create a theoretical vacuum in the 1780s. Until Madison started his course of study leading up to his participation in the Convention, no one had undertaken a thorough critique of the failings of both the Congress and the states. The members of Congress were too busy dealing with the issues of war, of finance, of foreign relations, of wanting to go home to private life, etc.. to take the time to really look at the weaknesses of the current federal system. Reformers kept bideing their time to let the problems reach a point where the populace as a whole would become concerned enough to be involved.
Basically, Rakove's thesis is that the Congress and then the Confederation developed piecemeal, according to the needs of the moment and to whatever compromise could be cobbled together to deal with those needs. Since Congress' political status was so theoretically odd, any attempt to piecemeal reform its organization was met with great suspicion.
As a result, when the Constitutional Convention met, in many ways, the possibilities were wide open. And up popped Madison, as it were, with his Virginia Plan ultimately setting the agenda that the Convention persued for the duration.
I hope I have given you some idea of the richness of the book. If you read widely in histories of this period you will find many reference to this work. It is considered something of a minor classic. I would love to see it reprinted with a new introduction allowing Rakove to update his ideas in light of the work done in the last three decades. Until such time, this is still very much a work worth studying.

1 of 1 people found the following review helpful:

4.0 out of 5 stars Excellent Analysis, December 28, 2008

By 

R. Albin (Ann Arbor, Michigan United States) - See all my reviews
(TOP 500 REVIEWER)    (REAL NAME)   

This review is from: The Beginnings of National Politics: An Interpretive History of the Continental Congress (Hardcover)

This fine book is a careful analysis of the Continental Congress. A work of impressive scholarship based on considerable work with primary sources, The Beginnings of National Politics is primarily an interpretative work. While Rakove does include much of the basic narrative, reading this book requires a good basic knowledge of the American Revolution. Rakove's interpretation is partly a reaction to the work of prior scholars, some of whom suggested the existence of formed political factions using the Congress as a means to achieve their political ends. Rakove finds this to be implausible. The Continental Congress, in Rakove's view, was a kludge cobbled together to meet the press of circumstances and generally reacting to circumstances beyond its control. Rakove finds that the many of the basic features of the Congress were the result of a need to maintain a united front towards Britain, the necessity of bolstering public opinion in the very diverse colonies, and the maladroit handling of colonial affairs by the British.

Rakove makes a particulary interesting argument about the Congress, even before the ratification of the Articles of Confederation as becoming a national government of sorts and in a certain sense legitimizing the governments of individual states; a strongly anti-states rights interpretation.

While the inefficiencies of the Congress as a national government are known well, Rakove has nice descriptions and analyses of how the Congress functioned during the war, its considerable limitations, and the generally ineffectual efforts to remedy its defects. Nonetheless, despite its limitations, the Congress did become a national government, did lead the rebellious colonies to victory, and become the instrument for creation of a national political class.

Rakove is particularly good on how many of the problems exposed by the failures of the Congress during the Revolution became the grist for constitutional reflection after the war. Rakove does not, however, look back from the Constitutional convention, but rather present the Continental Congress in an unanachronistic manner that shows how the Constitutional Convention came to be such a substantial break from the Congress period.

5 of 7 people found the following review helpful:

4.0 out of 5 stars Fascinating analysis of early American politics, February 4, 2000

By A Customer

This review is from: The Beginnings of National Politics: An Interpretive History of the Continental Congress (Paperback)

Rakove thoroughly researched materials for this book. His thesis is that the members of the Continental Congresses made political decisions based on limited alternatives available to them. Rakove intends his theory to disprove more popular views such as the one asserting that the Continental Congresses were driven by radical, ideological members. The book is chronologically organized. It can be used both as a source book by authors and students, and it is worthwhile for readers curious about the origins of nationalistic and state politics.

For factual information, organization and content I would give this book five stars. However, it is somewhat dry, showing itself to have originally been a dissertation. The participants of the Congresses are not animated nor brought to life; therefore, I gave it four stars.