I've been steadily working my way through this series, which every American school-aged child should read in its entirety before they graduate from high school. Many of the individual volumes are dated and certainly need some revision and updating in some cases, and many more volumes should be added, as much has happened over the last half-century - but these general introductions make the main features of our nation's history accessible to all and are well worth the read.
That said, this wasn't one of my favorites, perhaps because it focused a bit excessively on the story of a family who hosted a delegate to the Constitutional Convention rather than on the inner workings of the convention itself. As the book notes in its final pages, there was a multi-volume series produced in the mid-nineteenth century, "Debates of the Constitutional Convention in 1787," based on the handwritten notes and documents of James Madison and other delegates, which could have been used to highlight the primary debates and issues raised, perhaps in addition to the major players. An account of the discussions and disagreements over the establishment of the Houses of Congress, the Supreme Court, and the major institutions we have today, to me, would have been far more useful and insightful. The book notes that the goings-on were secret at the time, but it could have been written from the perspective of someone reminiscing about the events which led to the establishment of the world we live in today.
I would still highly recommend it as a part of the series, however, as it raises some important issues and will hopefully spark interest to further research and explore related matters more deeply, depending on individual personal interest. The book also includes the text of the Declaration of Independence, which itself offers a framework into the historical context of the period and a blueprint for additional discussion and debate.
So many people just don't realize just how radical this experiment was: the idea that a people could govern themselves via elected leaders, was a great departure from traditional political systems, but even more so was the framework the Founders set into place: many have no idea how the major features of our Republic came to be - for example, why are there two Houses and not just one; how did the Founders solve the problem of equal representation?
Equally impressive, perhaps to some even divinely-inspired, was the forethought put into the framing of the Constitution - the acknowledgement by the authors and signers even then that what they were agreeing to was an imperfect and unfinished vessel, one which would no doubt be altered and amended by future generations who would face problems that the original founders could not at that time foresee. The built-in mechanisms for correction, alteration, redirection and interpretation are largely what has kept this machine running for more than two centuries, and has been, above all else, been responsible for the resiliency of a system which, as the book noted, has functioned better than anything the Founders could have then envisioned. I think they would be astounded that this experimental system, which had no real historic precedent, has endured as long as it has, having faced the challenges which have threatened its very existence.
Just as impressive, to me, was the Founders' ability to compromise to get the job done, even to stipulations which were against their most deeply-held beliefs (i.e., the compromise on slavery - the South would agree to join the Union only upon the ability to continue to import massive numbers of enslaved persons from west Africa to perpetuate the plantation system - but ONLY for a limited time, 20 years, until most of that present generation died out) is enviable - but unfortunately didn't seem to be inherited by future generations, to our great detriment. How do you have a united country AND satisfy the human tendency toward "tribalism," which was such a dominant feature of the European world? The genius answer: acknowledge that this tendency exists, and will manifest in some way, and use it to your advantage, by having TWO elected bodies, one based on population, and one based on equal representation, itself a check and balance on "tyranny of the majority."
Many consider the signing of the Constitution - the notion that people who disagreed so vociferously over so much, themselves clinging to deeply-held beliefs they were loathe to compromise, could come together to agree on a comprehensive policy which would govern every aspect of their lives - to be the real "American miracle," perhaps even more so than the unfathomable victory over the British at the conclusion of the Revolutionary War.
----------------------------------------
The trouble with the old way of sticking together, which hadn't worked at all well, was that the agreement had been rushed through while the Americans were at war with England. They couldn't fight the war, each State by itself. So in a great hurry, just because they had to, they had made an agreement to work together. This agreement was called the Articles of Confederation.
If [the states] were separate countries, they would have differences of opinion, and every time this happened they would go to war with one another to get their own way. That was the way the European countries had always acted - fighting one another, century after century. And look what they had lost in money, deaths, poverty and misery! There must be some way of getting together that would work better than fighting one another. That's what the convention in 1787 in Philadelphia was to be for.
They had run into a very big problem. Some States were large and had lots of people in them. Other States were small. Suddenly everything came to a half. The delegates were hung up on a difference of opinion which couldn't ever - so far as they could see - be settled, because the problem would never change. There would always be large States and small ones. And people had grown so used to the idea of States that it seemed against nature to admit that some of them were less important than others. How could any government be devised which would be fair both to the small States, such as Delaware and New Jersey, and to the big States, such as Massachusetts and Pennsylvania.
The important fact to remember is that the Founding Fathers knew that, in the Constitution they were writing, they would have to make sure that no group of officials, and no single person, could tun things too much his own way. That is why the whole system is based on the idea of check and balances. That is also the chief reason for having both a Senate and a House of Representatives. Each acts as a "check" to the other; each helps balance the power given by the country. What every American should always remember not the long list of facts about what was voted at the Constitutional Convention, but the basic principle of checks and balances that has made the government work.... The people's votes on Election Day are the final decisive "check."
That said, this wasn't one of my favorites, perhaps because it focused a bit excessively on the story of a family who hosted a delegate to the Constitutional Convention rather than on the inner workings of the convention itself. As the book notes in its final pages, there was a multi-volume series produced in the mid-nineteenth century, "Debates of the Constitutional Convention in 1787," based on the handwritten notes and documents of James Madison and other delegates, which could have been used to highlight the primary debates and issues raised, perhaps in addition to the major players. An account of the discussions and disagreements over the establishment of the Houses of Congress, the Supreme Court, and the major institutions we have today, to me, would have been far more useful and insightful. The book notes that the goings-on were secret at the time, but it could have been written from the perspective of someone reminiscing about the events which led to the establishment of the world we live in today.
I would still highly recommend it as a part of the series, however, as it raises some important issues and will hopefully spark interest to further research and explore related matters more deeply, depending on individual personal interest. The book also includes the text of the Declaration of Independence, which itself offers a framework into the historical context of the period and a blueprint for additional discussion and debate.
So many people just don't realize just how radical this experiment was: the idea that a people could govern themselves via elected leaders, was a great departure from traditional political systems, but even more so was the framework the Founders set into place: many have no idea how the major features of our Republic came to be - for example, why are there two Houses and not just one; how did the Founders solve the problem of equal representation?
Equally impressive, perhaps to some even divinely-inspired, was the forethought put into the framing of the Constitution - the acknowledgement by the authors and signers even then that what they were agreeing to was an imperfect and unfinished vessel, one which would no doubt be altered and amended by future generations who would face problems that the original founders could not at that time foresee. The built-in mechanisms for correction, alteration, redirection and interpretation are largely what has kept this machine running for more than two centuries, and has been, above all else, been responsible for the resiliency of a system which, as the book noted, has functioned better than anything the Founders could have then envisioned. I think they would be astounded that this experimental system, which had no real historic precedent, has endured as long as it has, having faced the challenges which have threatened its very existence.
Just as impressive, to me, was the Founders' ability to compromise to get the job done, even to stipulations which were against their most deeply-held beliefs (i.e., the compromise on slavery - the South would agree to join the Union only upon the ability to continue to import massive numbers of enslaved persons from west Africa to perpetuate the plantation system - but ONLY for a limited time, 20 years, until most of that present generation died out) is enviable - but unfortunately didn't seem to be inherited by future generations, to our great detriment. How do you have a united country AND satisfy the human tendency toward "tribalism," which was such a dominant feature of the European world? The genius answer: acknowledge that this tendency exists, and will manifest in some way, and use it to your advantage, by having TWO elected bodies, one based on population, and one based on equal representation, itself a check and balance on "tyranny of the majority."
Many consider the signing of the Constitution - the notion that people who disagreed so vociferously over so much, themselves clinging to deeply-held beliefs they were loathe to compromise, could come together to agree on a comprehensive policy which would govern every aspect of their lives - to be the real "American miracle," perhaps even more so than the unfathomable victory over the British at the conclusion of the Revolutionary War.
----------------------------------------
The trouble with the old way of sticking together, which hadn't worked at all well, was that the agreement had been rushed through while the Americans were at war with England. They couldn't fight the war, each State by itself. So in a great hurry, just because they had to, they had made an agreement to work together. This agreement was called the Articles of Confederation.
If [the states] were separate countries, they would have differences of opinion, and every time this happened they would go to war with one another to get their own way. That was the way the European countries had always acted - fighting one another, century after century. And look what they had lost in money, deaths, poverty and misery! There must be some way of getting together that would work better than fighting one another. That's what the convention in 1787 in Philadelphia was to be for.
They had run into a very big problem. Some States were large and had lots of people in them. Other States were small. Suddenly everything came to a half. The delegates were hung up on a difference of opinion which couldn't ever - so far as they could see - be settled, because the problem would never change. There would always be large States and small ones. And people had grown so used to the idea of States that it seemed against nature to admit that some of them were less important than others. How could any government be devised which would be fair both to the small States, such as Delaware and New Jersey, and to the big States, such as Massachusetts and Pennsylvania.
The important fact to remember is that the Founding Fathers knew that, in the Constitution they were writing, they would have to make sure that no group of officials, and no single person, could tun things too much his own way. That is why the whole system is based on the idea of check and balances. That is also the chief reason for having both a Senate and a House of Representatives. Each acts as a "check" to the other; each helps balance the power given by the country. What every American should always remember not the long list of facts about what was voted at the Constitutional Convention, but the basic principle of checks and balances that has made the government work.... The people's votes on Election Day are the final decisive "check."
