Customer Reviews

James Madison and the Struggle for the Bill of Rights (Pivotal Moments in American History)

5 star:		(8)
4 star:		(10)
3 star:		(4)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(2)

 

 

James Madison and the Struggle for the Bill of Rights is a wonderfully researched book on a period of American history often neglected in many high school or college courses on the period. Richard Labunski adds a terrific piece to the Oxford Series "Pivotal Moments in American History". There are now numerous entries into this series and, while its title candidly seemed a bit trivial, these editions are all worth reading if one has any interest in any of the "moments" covered.

Labunski details the period from the writing of the Constitution to its ultimate acceptance from a group of states that had yet to feel any real national cohesiveness. As such, when it was sent to the various states for ratification, there was a great deal of concern that too much power would be vested at the national level, leaving the states and all individuals open to potential despotic governance. Specifically a Bill of Rights was envisioned and discussed but ultimately tabled at the Constitutional Convention.

The author methodically walks through the process needed for ratification in Virginia, a key state - from a population, political and economic standpoint. In essence, regardless of the three quarters rule, Virginia's acceptance was needed. James Madison, a Federalist, was up against a formidable opposition with both the Anti-Federalists along with those who favored ratification with a Bill of Rights, as a sine que non. Madison squared off against his long time friend, James Monroe and in what was to be a key election to the First Congress (after losing a Senate election). Two future Presidents going toe to toe on the issue of the day, the need, or lack therof, for a Bill of Rights which could muddy the waters of other states accepting and ratifying this unifying document that could alter history. It is hard to comprehend in today's world that two men of their standing would run against one another for a "simple" House seat. But it was critical and they both accepted the burden.

Madison wrote (in a spirit that today's politicians should have to read) "It was my misfortune to be thrown into a contest with our friend, Col Monroe . . . Between ourselves, I have no reason to doubt that the distinction was duly kept in the mind between political and personal views, and that it has saved our friendship from the smallest diminution". Madison was in favor of ratification and, over time, became convinced that a Bill of Rights should be incorporated into the document. Monroe, on the other hand, had strong reservations about a Constitution (even though the Articles of Confederation were largely failing) but certainly only would vote for its acceptance with the rights written in from its inception.

Labunski writes and wonders how different things would have been had Madison not been able to hold together the First Congress in debate of the Bill of Rights. He puts them well into an historical context and writes quite well on the various opinions and politics driving the debate. There is very little to not enjoy about this book. It is a fascinating read about a truly remarkable time in our history. One can only imagine what our nation would be like if the Framers hadn't intimately written the first ten amendments that are, too often, taken for granted today.

"James Madison and the Struggle for the Bill of Rights" was a very enjoyable read, and one that I would definitely enjoy reading again. It is full of detail, but doesn't lack on readability either. Unlike some of the reviewers, I enjoyed the details of weather conditions and felt that this information was important to telling the struggle for the Bill of Rights as weather was a huge obstacle to travel in that time. I also was able to better picture what it would be like to sit in a hot, sultry, building with no ventilation (as when the windows had to be closed due to the noisy streets) and spend hours discussing how much power the constitution would grant the federal government or if it indeed would greatly infringe on individual liberties.

Lets go out on a limb, and say that James Madison probably wouldn't make it in politics today. He was 5'4", shy, soft spoken, and portrayed by the author as extremely timid when speaking in front of a large group. He also "flip-flopped" on his stance on the Bill of Rights, which at that time seemed to be democracy working (Today he would probably be eaten alive); Madison seems to not only believe passionately about the importance of a strong federal government, but evolves to believe just as passionately about the protection of the people's individual rights (Thus- A Bill of Rights). OK, it could be argued that he had to compromise and promise support of a Bill of Rights to get elected, but the author seems to feel that Madison truly believed in their importance. The story of Madison is very interesting and even for his time he seems to be somewhat of an underdog whose passion, intellect, and love for his country allowed him to prevail over his short-comings. His election to the House is nothing but fascinating as once again the cards were stacked against him (Thanks to Patrick Henry who gerrymandered his district so that he would likely lose).

The story of Virginia's constitutional congress was every bit as fascinating, and it can be said that human nature and the psychology of politics had many similarities then as it does now. Many people had passionately different philosophical views of what government should and shouldn't be. As could be argued today, both sides had some good points. It was interesting how fear seemed to perpetuate both sides passion. The Anti-Federalists being fearful of a monarchal type of government invading on individual liberty, and the Federalists fearful that individual states wouldn't have economic power or the ability to defend themselves. The author portrays the high-stakes decision of Virginia ratifying the constitution without a Bill of Rights. He points out that if this hadn't happened, George Washington wouldn't have even been eligible to serve in the new government. Anyways, the story of our founders verbally battling it out in a theater in Shocco-Bottom in Richmond is also well portrayed. For anyone interested in American history and politics, I would recommend this book as a must read.

I found this book engaging for the most part. I especially appreciated some of the snippets of speeches and the description of the interplay between Madison and Patrick Henry and James Monroe and others.

I was a bit dissapointed that the book did not offer a more rigorous treatment of the author's hypothesis, and that it did not treat more fully the ideas behind the political debate and machinations that are documented. It was a little bit too much a loose "journalism" approach, telling the political story.

Also, as another review suggests, the narrative thread sometimes seems to waver ... many many details that don't serve to advance either the story or the critical hypothesis.

But -- I'm glad I stumbled on it, glad to have spent some time with it. Perhaps after I have read more deeply on these subjects (I am just starting a personal project to learn about American history) I would be less patient with the books deficiencies. For now, for me, it was an interesting re-introduction to some of the characters and questions of the time.

Dr. Labunski captures the emotion, immediacy and intensity of the debate over the Bill of Rights as only a journalist of the day might be expected to write. A truly new perspective on Mr. Madison as "vote counter" and "political strategist."

Loved this book! I read it in one day...couldn't put it down. Learn how our precious Bill of Rights almost didn't come into being, and learn about the men who made sure it did.

Although I am an amateur student of this period in American History, I was not familiar with the events described in this book. Therefore I found the book most enlightening. The details of the Virginia ratification convention offer important insights into the founding of the United States. The insights into the character of James Madison ware very informative. The book was very well written as well.

The book is an amazing expose of the struggle to establish our iconic and cherished Bill of Rights. It is amazing for a couple of reasons; to most people it is amazing that Madison was the dominant initiate not only the Constitution but the Bill of rights as well; additonal amazement comes when it is realized that he had such a hard time getting the Bill of rights from Congress out to the People. The author does an excellent job of detailing the discussions, without over using quotations and documents of the time. In so doing he grants to the average American an insight into the sources and principles Madison sought to achieve. Linking the Ratifying Conventions of the Constitution to the document is of paramount importance to a more comprehensive knowledge of the Founding Era, for it was the objections of the Ratifying Conventions to a latitudinous interpretation of the Constitution that inspired the very desire for the Bill of Rights to begin with.

The book motivated me to examine the Preamble of the Bill of Rights that was forwarded to the States which included the following:

THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.

The fear of a misconstruction, or an innacurate interpretation kept some who ratified waiting further assurances, hence the Amendmendments proposed by Madison. As the wording of the Amendments changed going through the committees of the House and The Senate, during the Ratification of the Amendments some were disappointed that, what we would come to know as the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, were not more explicit exegetical tools. Over the years Madison constantly responded in the following fashion,

"If a line can be drawn between the powers granted and the rights retained, it would seem to be the same thing whether the latter be secured by declaring that they shall not be abridged, or that the former shall not be extended.''

The book certainly helps in developing a larger consciousness of what the Amendments meant but also how the Constitution was originally meant to interpreted apparently through the Ninth And Tenth Amendment,

First of all, I do want to say that author Richard Labunski did a fine job detailing the trials and travails of the road to the first Congress travelled by James Madison, one of our most indispensable Founders. Labunski reminds us that history was, while in the making, not nearly as foregone as it seems this far removed. Madison could have lost his election to the First session of the House of Representatives after the new government was formed causing the Constitution to perhaps lose the addition of the Bill of Rights and that would have been calamitous, indeed.

I enjoyed the story of Madison's road as told by Labunski. Madison has been one of those founders who's position as a great Founder has been rocky. Up one decade and down another. Sometimes he has been considered a far lesser light than he deserves to be considered. Currently, he seems to be up which is fortunate. I think he should remain there. He is by far one of the most brilliant Founders we had and it is good that Labunski treats Madison with the respect he deserves.

Here is where I feel the book was lacking, though. Why was the Bill of Rights so important? What were the philosophies, the influences, the reasons the amendments were fought over? Labunski does not take much time to delve further under the surface to ferret out those reasons. He briefly mentions things here and there as the book moves along those lines, but I think his book would have been more complete with a bit more of it.

I found myself wondering what all the fuss was over far too much while reading the book and feel Labunski shorted the reader a fuller explanation.

Still, I give the book a pretty good rating. It is a good tale that is not often told (which is why I think he should have gone deeper, by the way).

It come recommended by me, anyway.

James Madison was an unlikely hero during the constitional convention but his battles to add the Bill Of Rights to it are even more compelling. This book does an excellent job of recounting the maneuverings and compromises as Madison tries to satisfy both Federalists and his own party's doubts; even his best friend Thomas Jefferson is dubious about the Constitution without a Bill Of Rights. This course of action brings Madison in conflict with some of his fellow Virginians, most notably, a vengeful Patrick Henry, who wanted little or no central government anyway. He sets off on a no holds barred campaign to not only block the Constitution but also make sure Madison never serves in government again. It would seem to be Goliath versus David, given Henry's passionate oratory, but Madison triumphs in dogged, if not reluctant, determination.

At least with "James Madison And The Struggle For The Bill of Rights", Richard Labunski has proven himself to deserve to be listed with others of the finest historical writers of today such as David McCullough, and David Hackett Fischer. I have not read any of his other works, but if this one is any indication, I will be reading much more of his writing.

"...Struggle For The Bill of Rights" captured my attention from the introduction. Sometimes it takes me three or four weeks to read a book of this size, because I do a lot of internet information chasing (not to verify what the writer is saying, but to satisfy my thirst for more facts) based on what is in the book. Even with the extra searching that Labunski sparked, I finished this jewel in only eight days. It was very hard to put down.

I found "...Struggle For The Bill of Rights" to be very well written, and full of good analogy and application. The story was presented from beginning to ending in a logical and comprehensible manner. Explanations of the likely motivations and reasoning of opponents were included in the proper places to enable the reader to follow the flow. I also liked the fact that while the author presented all sides of the issues, he did not voice judgments on the characters of the men involved, but simply presented what they did, relating the events and their results.

As Labunski presented James Madison's efforts and the opposition he encountered, I was able to see, even more clearly than ever before, that the adoption of the constitution and the Bill of Rights was a distinctly American process. Debates, arguments, compromise, threats, lies, and intrigue are all part of our story. Yet, unlike many other countries' stories, there were no recorded murders or assassinations over how to run the government, other than the unfortunate tradition of dueling such as the one that took Alexander Hamilton's life and ruined Aaron Burr's career in 1804.

Along with his story, Labunski delivered a wonderful dose of wonder and pride at just how awesome we are as a nation.

Two things seemed to be lacking in the book. One was a list of the order and date of states ratifications of the Constitution and Bill of Rights. While this information was given in the text, it would be a wonderful resource to refer to while reading. The other is relevant maps. There is only one map, that of the arrangement of the "gerrymandered" district from which Madison was elected to the first congress. While these omissions do not in any way harm the book, their presence would certainly have enhanced it.

I highly recommend this book to anyone wanting to learn more about the beginnings of our government, James Madison, the Constitution, or the Bill of Rights. I would go so far as to describe it as almost required reading.

Five big stars.