Enjoy fast, FREE delivery, exclusive deals and award-winning movies & TV shows with Prime
Try Prime
and start saving today with Fast, FREE Delivery
Amazon Prime includes:
Fast, FREE Delivery is available to Prime members. To join, select "Try Amazon Prime and start saving today with Fast, FREE Delivery" below the Add to Cart button.
Amazon Prime members enjoy:- Cardmembers earn 5% Back at Amazon.com with a Prime Credit Card.
- Unlimited Free Two-Day Delivery
- Instant streaming of thousands of movies and TV episodes with Prime Video
- A Kindle book to borrow for free each month - with no due dates
- Listen to over 2 million songs and hundreds of playlists
- Unlimited photo storage with anywhere access
Important: Your credit card will NOT be charged when you start your free trial or if you cancel during the trial period. If you're happy with Amazon Prime, do nothing. At the end of the free trial, your membership will automatically upgrade to a monthly membership.
Buy new:
$20.00$20.00
FREE delivery: Saturday, April 15 on orders over $25.00 shipped by Amazon.
Ships from: Amazon.com Sold by: Amazon.com
Buy used: $13.80
Other Sellers on Amazon
+ $3.99 shipping
100% positive over last 12 months
+ $3.99 shipping
99% positive over last 12 months
95% positive over last 12 months
Download the free Kindle app and start reading Kindle books instantly on your smartphone, tablet, or computer - no Kindle device required. Learn more
Read instantly on your browser with Kindle for Web.
Using your mobile phone camera - scan the code below and download the Kindle app.
Plain, Honest Men: The Making of the American Constitution Paperback – February 9, 2010
| Price | New from | Used from |
|
Audible Audiobook, Unabridged
"Please retry" |
$0.00
| Free with your Audible trial | |
|
Hardcover, Deckle Edge
"Please retry" | $21.87 | $1.59 |
|
Preloaded Digital Audio Player, Unabridged
"Please retry" | $78.73 | — |
Purchase options and add-ons
- Print length544 pages
- LanguageEnglish
- PublisherRandom House Trade Paperbacks
- Publication dateFebruary 9, 2010
- Dimensions5.51 x 1.18 x 8.23 inches
- ISBN-100812976843
- ISBN-13978-0812976847
Frequently bought together

- +
- +
Customers who viewed this item also viewed
Editorial Reviews
Review
"Beeman eschews the heroic version of the story in favor of a hard-eyed narrative that in no way diminishes the Framers' achievement. . . . In a motion-by-motion, day-by-day, debate-by-debate fashion, he re-creates the [delegates'] hard bargaining. . . . Masterfully told American history for the scholar and general reader alike."—Kirkus Reviews, starred review
"While some have boasted it as a work from Heaven, others have given it a less righteous origin. I have many reasons to believe that it is the work of plain, honest men."—Gouverneur Morris
"Authoritative and readable . . . Beeman's work is distiguished by a gently judicious tone that allows us to appreciate, and draw some lessons from, the delicate balances that emerged out of that passion-filled Philadelphia crucible." —Walter Isaacson, The New York Times Book Review
"The fullest and most authoritative account of the Constitutional Convention ever written." – Gordon S. Wood, author of The Radicalism of the American Revolution
"Engrossing . . . This minute-by-minute account introduces us to a world, and time, where everything was at stake."—Chicago Tribune, editor's choice
"A stunning achievement . . . easily the best and most comprehensive treatment of its subject ever written."—Weekly Standard
About the Author
Excerpt. © Reprinted by permission. All rights reserved.
THE CRISIS
it was a blustery Saturday morning on March 15, 1783, and patches of snow still flecked the ground. General George Washington strode up a long hill toward a rocky promontory at the American army encampment seven miles southwest of Newburgh, New York. He was about to face the greatest personal challenge of his career. He was uncharacteristically nervous and uncertain, roiled by sensations of anger, frustration, and inadequacy. He had led his army to a brilliant victory over the British at Yorktown some seventeen months earlier. Yet the soldiers at Newburgh remained in the field, languishing, while peace negotiations dragged on in Paris. His troops had not been paid for many months, and the Continental Congress’s promises of a generous pension seemed as empty as the coffers of the bankrupt Confederation government.
To make matters worse, a cabal of American army officers, angry over the failure of the continental government to make good on its promises, had decided to take matters into their own hands. Five days earlier, Major John Armstrong, aide-de-camp to the commander at Newburgh, General Horatio Gates (Washington’s longtime rival), circulated an “address” to the soldiers, urging them to cease their meek supplications to an uncaring Congress and, if necessary, to throw off Washington’s leadership and redress their grievances by force of arms. In a letter to his former aide-de-camp and protégé Alexander Hamilton, Washington expressed his fear that the disgruntled soldiers might throw “themselves into a gulph of Civil Horror.” Yet at the same time he had deep sympathy for their plight. Indeed, Hamilton had been gently nudging his mentor to throw in his lot with the discontented soldiers. As he approached his destination, Washington faced a painful choice: to remain loyal to his long-suffering troops or to honor the rule of law.
America’s ambitious experiment in liberty had seemed full of promise seven years earlier, in the summer of 1776, when Washington had ordered his commanders to read the Declaration of Independence aloud to their troops in order to steel them for the sacrifices ahead. And they had met the challenge. Since that time they had persevered through the cold and deprivation of Valley Forge, through nearly seven years of often dispiriting battle against the better-equipped British Army. Washington had come to understand that American liberty and American union—a strong union—were inseparable. The discontented soldiers at Newburgh threatened to put both liberty and the union at risk.
When he reached the top of the promontory, Washington entered a cavernous, drafty building, one hundred ten by thirty feet, which looked down on the Continental army encampment below. The “New Building” had been constructed a few months earlier to encourage “sociability” among the officers. But as Washington walked the length of the long hall past the five hundred assembled officers toward a small stage and lectern at the far end, there was little feeling of sociability in the air. The spectacle presented by the officers, many of them with faces set in anger, deepened Washington’s gloom. Everything about their appearance testified to the shameful neglect they had suffered at the hands of the continental government—from their torn and soiled uniforms to their worn-out boots and gaunt faces. And these were the privileged few, the officers. Washington knew that the enlisted men, waiting in their barracks for news of the outcome of the meeting, had suffered even greater privation. While the officers were at times reduced to making their overcoats out of blankets, they wore those overcoats, as historian Charles Royster has observed, “in the presence of men who had no blankets.” Forced to endure bitterly cold winters, often clad in uniforms pieced together from an old hunting shirt, overalls, or even rags, and subsisting on a diet barely adequate to keep body and soul together, the ordinary foot soldiers in Washington’s army had every reason to believe their country had betrayed them. The failure of the government to pay the soldiers their wages hit the enlisted men the hardest, and it seemed to Washington nothing short of criminal. Their wives and children back home were reduced to begging in the streets in order to avoid starvation. Was this the “liberty” for which Americans had fought?
By the time Washington made his entrance, General Gates had already opened the meeting. Washington interrupted him, asking for permission to address the officers. Visibly shaken by Washington’s presence, Gates had no choice but to accede to the request of his rival, who was, after all, the commander in chief of the Continental army.4
A man typically comfortable and confident in any public situation, Washington was visibly agitated and uneasy. He began with an apology. He had not intended to involve himself in the controversy, but upon reading the content of Major Armstrong’s address, he felt it necessary to speak his mind. In a departure from his usual manner in speaking to his officers, he would not speak off-the-cuff. Instead he took from the pocket of his coat a speech he had painstakingly written out the day before. He began by vowing that he would extend every effort and power at his command “in the attainment of complete justice for all of your trials and dangers,” but then, assuming a suppliant tone, he proceeded.
Let me entreat you, gentlemen, on your part, not to take any measures which, viewed in the calm light of reason, will lessen the dignity and sully the glory you have hitherto maintained; let me request you to rely on the plighted faith of your country, and place a full confidence in the purity of the intentions of Congress.... You will, by the dignity of your conduct afford occasion for posterity to say, when speaking of the glorious example you have exhibited to mankind, “had this day been wanting, the world had never seen the last stage of perfection of which human nature is capable of attaining.”
It was an impressive ending, perhaps as impressive a speech as Washington had ever given, but looking out at his audience, he could see that many of the officers remained unmoved. At that point he pulled from his pocket a letter from one of his Virginia friends—Joseph Jones, a delegate to the Continental Congress—who had written him expressing sympathy for the plight of the soldiers and promising to work in the Congress to honor the government’s obligations to them. The letter was scrawled out in barely legible form, and Washington stumbled over its first few sentences. Disoriented, he searched in the pocket of his coat once again and pulled out a pair of spectacles that had recently been sent to him by the Philadelphia scientist, David Rittenhouse. It was probably the first time anyone had ever seen Washington wear spectacles in public. “Gentlemen,” he said, “you must pardon me. I have grown grey in your service, and now find myself going blind.” He put on the glasses and finished reading the letter, making it clear to the officers that he would place his prestige and honor on the line in their cause, so long as that cause was served in a peaceful and lawful manner. Then, without fanfare, he left the room—and the soldiers to their deliberations.
As he made his exit, tears streamed down the cheeks of some of the soldiers’ faces, and a hush—a hush borne of contrition and shame—fell over the hall. When they recovered their composure, the soldiers gave him a formal vote of thanks, repudiated Major Armstrong’s address, and asked their commander in chief to act as their agent in securing their just rewards for service to their country.
Was it a guileless performance? It probably was not, for Washington was a man who always carefully gauged the effects of his demeanor and his words in any public situation. But one thing is certain. No other man in America could have pulled it off. And Washington was true to his word. The Continental Congress, terrified by the threat of armed revolt and grovelingly grateful to Washington for his intervention, pledged its support for a financial settlement that went at least a part of the way toward meeting the soldiers’ salary and pension demands.
If one is looking for critical turning points in American history, times when the future direction of the republic might have altered course, Washington’s performance at Newburgh, the Constitutional Convention, Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address, and the subsequent passage of the constitutional amendments eradicating slavery from the American Constitution stand out as decisive. Washington was the only man in America who possessed the combination of charisma, political and military experience, and public support capable of converting America’s experiment in republican liberty into a dictatorship—a benevolent dictatorship perhaps, but a dictatorship nevertheless. Given the financial disarray and civil disorder represented by the discontent of the soldiers at Newburgh, Washington could have convinced himself that military solutions to civil political problems were the best course of action, as did many leaders in the revolutions of Latin America in the century to come. Some, like Simón Bolívar in Venezuela, Peru, and Columbia, did so reluctantly. Others, like Santa Anna in Mexico or Bernardo O’Higgins in Chile, did so more eagerly. All of these countries have lived with a tradition of military intrusion in the affairs of their governments ever since.
Product details
- Publisher : Random House Trade Paperbacks; Reprint edition (February 9, 2010)
- Language : English
- Paperback : 544 pages
- ISBN-10 : 0812976843
- ISBN-13 : 978-0812976847
- Item Weight : 1.12 pounds
- Dimensions : 5.51 x 1.18 x 8.23 inches
- Best Sellers Rank: #119,736 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)
- #68 in Constitutions (Books)
- #81 in General Constitutional Law
- #252 in U.S. Revolution & Founding History
- Customer Reviews:
About the author

Discover more of the author’s books, see similar authors, read author blogs and more
Customer reviews
Customer Reviews, including Product Star Ratings help customers to learn more about the product and decide whether it is the right product for them.
To calculate the overall star rating and percentage breakdown by star, we don’t use a simple average. Instead, our system considers things like how recent a review is and if the reviewer bought the item on Amazon. It also analyzed reviews to verify trustworthiness.
Learn more how customers reviews work on Amazon-
Top reviews
Top reviews from the United States
There was a problem filtering reviews right now. Please try again later.
The Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union had been constructed soon after independence was declared. The Articles were more a peace treaty establishing an alliance between the states that kept state sovereignty. It did not allow for the government to tax states. It required the unanimous agreement of all 13 state legislatures to enact an amendment. It did not create an executive position. It issued money the states then refused to back and thus become worthless. The states themselves were economically hard pressed to help finance and provide supplies to the army. British military errors contributed to a struggling American Army's success.
With no ability to raise revenues, our nation was unable to pay soldiers. Soldiers did not have blankets for winter and they were barely fed. Soldiers were threatening to undertake an uprising. Morris sided with the angry troops, which upset Washington. Washington went to the troops and calmed them and went to Congress to argue for their pay.
Congress did little, especially since it had difficulties even obtaining a quorum. Loans had to be repaid. Defaulting to European powers was not an option. Even Rhode Island realized the seriousness of keep financial credibility and the Rhode Island legislature joined in supported import taxes. This time, New York, which had a state goods tax, feared a national tax would harm its competitive position, and its legislature killed the import tax proposal.
An uprising occurred in Massachusetts in 1786. Destitute farmers were having their farms foreclosed due to their inability to pay taxes or repay loans. Farmers seized several country courthouses. There were fears this Shay's Rebellion would seek reunification with Great Britain.
The Continental Congress realized they had no ability to raise federal troops to fight this rebellion. Governor James Bowdoin of Massachusetts created a private militia organized through $20,000 in private contributions. Four rebels were killed and the rest, who likely were composed of several hundred men rather than the reported 15,000 men, dispersed.
For six days a week, over four months, in 1787, 55 delegates from the 13 states met in the Pennsylvania State House chambers in Philadelphia to debate and form a Constitution. It was a document forged from dissent and compromise based upon that era's political knowledge and limitations thereof, as there was little prior history to predict who it would work.
The Constitution was written with much uncertainty as to what its future was and with uncertainty among the delegates as to what the words meant. It was a document wrote with patriotic faith in attempts to form a "more perfect union" even as they admitted the document itself was not perfect. It was also a document they expected to change over time.
Debates arose over whether representation by population should be determined by the number of free inhabitants states had (a view favored by New England states where all were free) or total population including slaves (a view favored by Southern states.)
With the rule of King George III fresh in the minds of Delegates, the idea of an executive leader was distrusted. There was no executive under the Articles of Confederation. James Madison noted that the states that had failed to give their Governor (a few states had a President) veto power saw state legislatures passing measures that harmed minority rights by giving rights to the majority. Roger Sherman argued the executive should only administer the will of the legislature. George Washington's presence, and the respect given him as the presumptive ultimate executive, probably prevented the Delegates from dividing the executive's job into an office held by several people.
In the debates between whether a federal or national government should be established, John Dickinson was one of the first to suggest it be a compromise combination of both. Other efforts at compromise continued as Roger Sherman, Oliver Ellsworth, and William Samuel Johnson argued for the lower house being represented by population and the upper chamber having each state with equal representation.
The committee working on details revisited the previously mostly ignored topic of electing the President with Electors. There was dissatisfaction with the notion that Congress should elect the President and several felt a need to keep the President and Congress more separate. The state legislatures would decide how to select the Electors. There were fears that no one would receive a majority. Hugh Williamson suggested that a President could be elected with the support of at least a third vote of the Electors.
A bill of rights as not included. Many of the Delegates had tired and believed it was only their duty to create a framework for government and no more.
The Constitution became official. As the author notes, the revolutionary debate that began on Constitutional issues continues through the present. This book presents detailed descriptions of the people and times behind the creation of our Constitution. It provides insightful explanations on how the demands of the times and the debates of leaders led to forming a 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.









