Customer Reviews

Plain, Honest Men: The Making of the American Constitution

5 star:		(29)
4 star:		(4)
3 star:		(3)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

If there are two things I would recommend reading this summer they are, in order, Plain, Honest Men: The Making of the American Constitution and then The Constitution of the United States. We take the Constitution for granted probably more than any other document that I know of.

In Plain, Honest Men, Richard Beeman gives the reader a glimpse of the process that produced one of the most beloved documents in the world. If beloved, it is equally misunderstood, misquoted, and misused. While Beeman's book won't prevent the various ills associated with the Constitution, and it won't make Constitutional scholars of us, it will provide an eye opening account of its creation and the personalities of the men who created it. I found Plain, Honest Men to be one of the best books I've read in the last couple of years. Yes, in places it is a page turner.

I also now understand some of the debates over issues like ownership of guns. As much as I am grateful for the existence of the Constitution, it is not a perfect document. Witness the current debates over the issue of gun control, or the separation of church and state. Can you have too much freedom of speech? All of these questions are debated now because of the contents of the Constitution we have. If those issues are confusing to us, the shocker is that they were confusing to the writers of the Constitution. There was very little agreement then on any of the issues. The Constitution we have is a creation of compromise. Understanding what Beeman conveys won't make these issues any clearer, but it will clarify the monumental event that the Constitution's creation was and is. Beeman also provides unique glimpses into the personalities like Robert Morris, George Washington, and James Madison and how they each helped to shape the document we have.

Americans should read Plain, Honest Men: The Making of the American Constitution. When you're finished, read the real document.

Peace to all.

An excellent history of the drafting of what was to become our nation's bedrock legal document.

Professor Beeman brings a lifetime of learning into his solid and polished account of the high and low statecraft that occupied those early leaders in Philadelphia during the long summer of 1787.

If you want to know why we have an electoral college; why Delaware has as many senators as California; why it is no surprise that the Civil War started in South Carolina; why the Constitution bans export taxes; why George Washington really was the indispensable man; why the Bill of Rights came afterwards; why ..., why ..., why ...--Buy and read this book.

It will win prizes.

Beeman is a highly respected scholar and expert on the Constitution, the Convention during which it was drafted, and the intellectual foundations of the document.

This popular, but also scholarly, treatment of the Constitutional Convention is thorough, balanced, and should be on the reading list of anyone who wants to really understand what went on during the three-month-long convention in Philadelphia. The proceedings of the Convention were not well documented (James Madison's amazing journal is the only comprehensive account; there is no other comparable source [least of all the official secretary's sketchy notes], and in many cases there are not corroborating reports that would enable verification of accounts. Hence, "what went on" is often open to interpretation, both as to the intent of the speaker/interest group and as to the precise content.

Given those persistent challenges, Beeman is scrupulously fair in fully describing both what is known, and in most instances to convey the factors that qualify or prevent firm conclusions as to meaning or intent. More than this, no historian should be expected to investigate and convey.

Others have given this book three stars, and have claimed that they find in it bias and apologies for "judicial activism." I find nothing of the sort, and such qualified approval simply reveals a tendency to seek "political correctness" (as defined by the reviewer) in the text.

Beeman's treatment is first-rate, reliable, even-handed, and will help readers to understand that ALL points of view were vigorously and fully shared during the convention. Any other characterization of this book is, in my opinion, based not on fact but on uninformed opinion.

I fully enjoyed this book as part of my reading program on the Constitution, and recommend it without reservation to the thoughtful inquirer.

Beeman makes a pivotal moment in history come alive for the average reader with detailed character sketches of each of the delegates. You're learning something, but you never feel like you're reading a textbook...

I think his treatment of James Madison is destined to be the final word.

The bonus for me was discovering how relevant most of the book is to evaluating the political climate we find ourselves in today.

This book reminds me of "The Founding Brothers" and "The Radicalism of the American Revolution" -- great writing for laymen by a talented professional historian. A key idea is that a small group of delegates, led by Washington, Madison, Morris, and Wilson, planned in advance to launch a revolutionary form of government. But who knew that Madison, clever enough to redirect the delegates who planned to simply amend the Articles of Confederation, was short and sickly, with a tendency to mumble? (A disappointment to me, a fellow Princeton alum.) Try this book... I'm sure you'll like it.

This book is truly an outstanding, eye-opening work on the making of our Constitution. Having read books and articles on the subject, and being a civil liberties practitioner, I can say with confidence that this book provides the reader with insights into our Constitution and our framers that cannot be so easily - or entertainingly - obtained from any other source.

It's a day by day account of the writing of the Constitution, that manages to make even the mundane seem gripping, and paints vivid, human portraits of the men who worked on the Constitution. They certainly were not perfect - nor is our founding document - but they did something extraordinary.

This is truly an invaluable contribution for student, teacher, practictioner, citizen, and anyone interested in a good read. I couldn't recommend it more highly.

This book is the most impressive and enthralling reading experience I have had for years. The story of the creation and ratification of the Constitution is given a very human face. The author peppers his chronicle with colorful vignettes and capsule biographies of the principle players. But, much more to the point, he tells the story of "plain, honest, men," struggling with their parochial and innate prejudices, their ambitions, and their notions of what the new country was to be. Strangely, the book had many of the qualities of a cliffhanger, even though I knew how it ended. In reading this book, I came to gain, simultaneously, an incredible respect for those men and their creation ... and a much healthier regard for the Constitution as a product of politics, compromise, and intrigue ... and see it even more as a living creature today. If you ever entertained the notion that the US Constitution was somehow either handed down from on high, intact and perfect, or is the sacrosanct product of our saintly, infallible founding fathers, it is imperative that you read this book...now!

A wise person told me when I was young, "paper does not refuse ink." Such is the case with the historical development of the US Constitution. Although the works in the document espouse specific types of truths the framers were interested in preserving the foundation of a new country. The US Constitution, since its inception, is a document that defies strict interpretation. As Beeman creatively demonstrates in Plain, Honest Men; the text of the Constitution is born not just from political, economic, and philosophical arguments of the 18th Century, it is a document that is the result of compromises, bargains, drunken bribes, street gossip and national security needs. It's nice to see that these arguments for its interpretation are still valid in the 21st Century. This is an excellent book.

There have been some excellent books written on the US Constitutional convention held in the summer of 1787. Three come to mind immediately: Catherine Drinker Bowen's MIRACLE AT PHILADELPHIA, 1966; Christopher Collier's DECISION IN PHILADELPHIA, 1986; and the more recent THE SUMMER OF 1787 by David O. Stewart, 2007. This book yields nothing to any of them in its insight into the entire process of creating the Constitution. It is a highly readable, step-by-step account of the many issues that arose from the very start of the convention and the often very drawn out efforts to resolve the complications. The author skillfully captures the personalities, concerns, and contributions of a great number of the delegates as they struggled to keep the convention on track and construct the Constitution.

As the author notes, the Articles of Confederation was little more than a "league" of sovereign states, who after the Revolutionary War had very little incentive to cooperate. But many of the leading citizens of these states were quite worried about the states' vulnerabilities to a variety of threats, both foreign and domestic, including their own state legislatures which were, in their view, too democratic. It was a real dilemma: how to create a stronger central government while respecting the sovereignty of the states.

James Madison of Virginia was by the far the leading advocate for a constitutional convention to resolve these weaknesses. In fact, he got a jump on all other attendees by proposing a new, powerful national government in his fifteen point Virginia Plan, which was the starting point for debate in the convention. All through June and July of 1787 that debate between the nationalists (Gouverneur Morris, James Wilson, Madison, etc) and states' rights delegates from Delaware, New Jersey, New York, among others, was primarily over the structuring of Congress and how the two houses would be filled. It was quite difficult for the delegates to truly appreciate that for Madison ultimate sovereignty for this new nation lay with "the People," not the states. And to this day, it is still not understood by state-righters.

The next biggest issue to resolve was the relative amount of power to be held by Congress or the chief executive. Given the fear of any sort of king-like executive, it took a great deal of persuasion to create an executive with enough power to be effective. Beyond the structure of the Congress and the Presidency, the social fact of slavery was a huge factor in virtually all of the convention compromises. There is absolutely no doubt that the South obtained many concessions from the other states regarding their "peculiar species of property."

"Plain" men could have never accomplished what these highly educated, well-placed fifty-five men did. They had the intellectual ability and resoluteness to make trade-offs among many factors and interests. Dealing with the most contentious matters, most certainly, the creation of a Senate with equal state representation and the accommodation of the Southern way of life, literally prevented a collapse of the entire proceedings. But the last issue came with high costs. Clearly, racism was a fact of life in the 18th century, but the biggest mistake of the convention, according to the author, was allowing for the importation of over 200 thousand Africans over the next twenty years before it was constitutionally banned. The resulting increased political and economic power of the South led inevitably to the Civil War.

As the author notes, the Constitution as of September 17, 1787, was no more than a document of intention, only a framework for a nation and a government. Even ratification was not a foregone conclusion. The author credits Washington with breathing life into the Constitution. It was his administration that set the precedent for so much that remains in present day government. He also notes the tremendous controversy in the first twelve years of our government between the Federalists, that is, Hamilton, and the Republicans, Madison and Jefferson, some of which was based on different interpretations of the Constitution.

The notion of "original intent" naturally arises in any discussion about the creation of the Constitution. It is quite clear that there were many intents that were fused in the making of the Constitution and most certainly reflected the thinking of the current times. It is equally clear that it was in part a flawed document. Certainly, its concessions to slavery put the nation on a course to Civil War. And several constitutional crises have resulted from its ambiguity in its stipulations for selecting presidents. Having said that, the author holds that the Constitution deserves veneration as an extraordinary document, but those feelings should not prevent us from properly addressing the tremendous changes in our society that place many of our principles concerning freedom and equality for every man in some jeopardy.

At this point, this book is probably the best on the constitutional convention.

Dr. Beeman has written a volume that will take a place of honor with my Notes on the Debates, edition of Bowman, ans Reed's biography of the Constitution. If you wanted to get at the heart of the debates with remarkable insightfulness of the characters and their political motivations and philosophy. Although I have read many volumes on the convention, Dr. Beeman has outdone himself in exactly articulating the arguments and compromises of the convention.
This volume also has significant importance today because of the debate of the constitutionality of legislation and the claims of pundits and candidates to carry the spirit of our Founding Fathers, often without knowing the politics of the founders they claim to emulate.
As a teacher and citizen I believe that you cannot do better than to chose this book as a one volume definitive explanation of the mechanics and arguments of the Convention of 1787. In fact, it sits proudly nestled between my copy of the Notes and the Federalist Papers. Thank you, Dr. Beeman.