Customer Reviews

Essays on the Making of the Constitution

5 star:		(1)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

In addition to a detailed introduction to the making of the Constitution, Levy provides a collection of writings from celebrated historians who describe the background to the gathering of delegates in Philadelphia during the summer of 1787. Weaknesses of the Articles of Confederation are discussed, as well as the goal of the nationalists to create a new system of national government for the United States that acted immediately on the people rather than on the states. Levey also presents an array of different views from leading experts on the meaning of the Constitution, and underlying motives of the Founders. Beard's "Economic Interpretation of the Constitution" is included, as well as later works that espouse a different view of the Constitutiion, and stress its democratical underpinnings. "Essays on the Making of the Constitution" is a must read for anyone interested in the historical context in which the Constitution was drafted, and the scholarly interpretation of the document that serves as the basis of the United States government.

This collection of essays edited and introduced by Leonard W. Levy gives a good overview of how the American Constitution was framed from a historical perspective of practical politics, but it says little about the intellectual basis and origins of the Constitution. The essays are representative of the changing perspectives of 20th century historians up to the early 1960's. Levy gives brief contextual notes at the beginning of each essay. The final essay is Levy's introduction to the making of the Bill of Rights. Surely there are many more recent texts on the subject of this book, but none of those that I saw seemed as promising as this book for the purpose of a broad overview. John Roche's essay and "crackling prose" (Levy's words) alone make the book worth reading.

The lack of an index is a big drawback, and some terms are only defined near the end of the book. Since no preface is given, the objectives of the book are unstated and the changes of the second edition are not described. The reader must look elsewhere for the actual text of the documents and the profiles of individuals involved.

Why should anyone other than an American read a book on such a dry subject? The US Constitution is often touted as one of the most important documents of human history, revered by many like scripture. The Framers who wrote it have always been considered by Americans to be exceptionally talented. Mason referred to them as "the greatest, the best, and the most enlightened of our citizens". Quoting them is an important rhetorical skill for American politicians.

Editor Leonard Levy writes rather enthusiastically: "The political philosophy of social compact, natural rights, and limited government that generated the Declaration of Independence [1776] also spurred the most important, creative, and dynamic constitutional achievements in history... Within a mere thirteen years [until 1789] Americans invented or first institutionalized a bill of rights against all branches of government, the written constitution, the constitutional convention, federalism, judicial review and [the agreement to give equal rights to new states as they joined the Union]. Religious liberty, the separation of church and state, political parties, separation of powers [i.e., executive, legislative, judicial], an acceptance of the principle of equality, and the conscious creation of a new nation were also among American institutional `firsts'.... In that brief time span, Americans created what are today the oldest major republic, political democracy, state constitution, and national constitution. These unparalleled American achievements derived not from originality in speculative theory but from the constructive application of old ideas."

The careful wording (e.g., "major") in the above quote qualifies the specific achievements, many of which did indeed have "parallels": Iceland is a much older democracy (930); there are older republics, namely San Marino (301) and Switzerland (1291, recognised by Treaty of Westphalia in 1648); Switzerland and perhaps other countries are older federations; and at least the UK constitution is older (starting with Magna Carta, 1215, but "unwritten"). All "old democracies", including America's, were only democratic for a minority of the population (usually adult, white, male land-owners). Nevertheless, the overall achievement of the US Constitution was a major step in civilisation that inspired many other countries.

The essays: Charles Beard became famous for his conspiracy theory of 1913, based on little research, that the Framers and Federalists were rich and motivated by personal gains. As reflected in the selected essays, historians subsequently researched the primary and secondary sources and statistics more seriously, attacking and counter-attacking based on deeper, broader, subtler or sillier interpretations. In the end one sees that the Framers and Ratification Conventions were generally not representative of their states, and that the motivations were complex: partly individual, regional, factional and generational. The Federalists were on average ten to twelve years younger the Anti-Federalists.

The intellectual or politico-theoretical basis for the Constitution is largely ignored. Only Roche addresses the topic directly, mocking the idea of the Framers philosophizing by day and reading the classics of political theory by night. "A number of them had some acquaintance with the history of political theory... and it was a poor rhetorician indeed who could not cite Locke, Montesquieu, or Harrington in support of a desired goal. Yet up to this point in the deliberations, no one had expounded a defence of states' rights or the `separation of powers' on anything resembling a theoretical basis. The merits of Montesquieu did not turn up until The Federalist [arguments for ratification]; and ... the Locke whom the American rebels treated as an honorary president was a pluralistic defender of vested rights, not of parliamentary supremacy." The act of interpreting what the Framers "really meant" quickly emerged as a professional and amateur industry that will likely be immortal, regardless of the fact that some vague texts were written with little or no underlying theory. Some in the industry even find the "real meaning" in conspiracy theories that contradict both what the Framers said and what they did. Granted Levy's hyper-excited description of the historical importance of the Constitution, which did not pop out of thin air, he could have written more on the origins. For this, readers might try Jonathan Israel's book "Democratic Enlightenment" or Forrest McDonald's book "Novus Ordo Seclorum".

This concludes my review of this book. The following is a short comparison of the process of framing, ratifying and promulgating the American Constitution in the 18th century with that of the EU Treaty in the 21st century.

Similarities: (1) Frighteningly high level of ambition, e.g. one supporter stated, "It is generally agreed, that a great extended nation can long continue under no single form of government, except a despotism..." (2) Long process of framing that ended with some substantially watered down ideas. (3) Long process of ratification that required much political manoeuvring from advocates against strong scepticism from most states. (4) Advocates sometimes did an about-face on their positions (e.g., Madison on the Bill of Rights). (5) Disgust with the results, e.g. Franklin said he would never be able to accept some parts of it. (6) The Anti-Federalists "were an amazingly reactionary lot... Their minds could not embrace the concept of a national interest which they themselves might share and which could transcend their own parochial concerns."

Differences: (1) Different historical circumstances at the outset: newness of the US; lack of credibility of individual US states for international trade and treaties; poor coordination between states; and an urgent sense of vulnerability to foreign attacks. (2) Once it was finally ratified, the US Constitution was immediately hailed as great. This did not happen in the E.U., but writers of modern constitutions are less easy to deify these days, and it did take a while for the US Constitution to achieve its semi-sacred, mythical status.