(K)(2007)The story of the inner workings of the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphie in 1787. Very good & readable account of the dirty work of creating a country from whole cloth.Booklist:This is, of course, a story that has been told before. But like most great stories, it is worth retelling, especially when told exceedingly well. Stewart, a former law clerk for Supreme Court Justice Lewis Powell, is a fine writer whose narrative unfolds like a well-structured novel. He begins with a description of the unsettled period just before the convention, as states quarreled with each other and a group of indebted farmers burned courthouses in Massachusetts. He describes the halting moves toward a Constitutional Convention that essentially were launched at a sparsely attended conference at George Washington's home at Mount Vernon. The narrative gathers steam as the convention begins in the sweltering heat of Philadelphia. Here Stewart artfully shows the roles played by the key players as they grappled with issues as varied as the rights of states and the future of slavery. In Stewart's view, the true genius of these founders was their understanding that free, popular government must be based upon compromise. General readers will find this work stimulating. Jay FreemanCopyright ? American Library Association.

A very good introduction to the creation of our Constitution. ( )

David Stewart has given us a very readable and in accessible history of our country’s critical framework the Constitution. Many concepts we have glossed over and take for granted and it’s worth reading if for no other reason to inform ourselves how this young country struggled with some of its most difficult issues arrived at a Constitution that still holds together today. He tells a story of deep division and dissension among representatives from the southern states the northern states this small states the big states. Somehow the representatives stayed together that summer to conclude and agree on a final document. As I read this in January 2021 it is a timely read and I think one that others should look back to to help us understand and solve our current divisions. ( )

David Stewart, a lawyer who has argued before the Supreme Court and become an expert on the impeachment of Andrew Johnson, has written a marvelously detailed account of the constitutional Convention of 1787.

We really only have Madison's notes for what went on and he edited those, some suspect for political considerations, after the fact, but it appears to be a fairly accurate account of what happened in that stuffy and stifling room in Philadelphia in 1787.

Benjamin Franklin remarked that he wasn't sure if the carving of the sun on the back of Washington's chair was rising or setting, and indeed, there was a lot of antagonism to a system that gave more power to a central government. However, it was necessary as states were constantly squabbling among each other about tariffs on each other's goods, militias, paying debts, honoring each other's money, and a myriad of other issues.

George Washington was particularly concerned after Shay's Rebellion that pitted one colony (they weren't really states yet) against another: “I am mortified beyond expression,” Washington wrote in October 1786, “when I view the clouds that have spread over the brightest morn that ever dawned upon any country.” Without “some alteration in our political creed,” he declared, “the superstructure we have been seven years raising at the expense of so much blood and treasure, must fall. We are fast verging to anarchy and confusion!”

Slave states worried about their slave trade and feared that a central power would create a centralized army that could shut it down. Indeed, Patrick Henry in his tirade against the ratification of the new Constitution in Virginia's House of Delegates was heard to exclaim, "They're coming to get your niggers." Slavery was the elephant in the room throughout the discussions. It was intertwined with what to do with the "West." No one was quite sure how to parcel it out and westerners were considered treacherous, fickle, and not to be trusted. It was even feared they might form their own government and secede. Land titles were unclear and several of the delegates, including Washington, were speculating on land values beyond the Appalachians, which formed the boundary between east and west.* Native American "ownership" was never considered, but there were many squatters and it took years to resolve the claims. **

I was humbled to realize how much I had forgotten from high school and surprised to learn (relearn?) of the role of John Rutledge and the Committee of five who were tasked with the job of summarizing and codifying the work of the larger Committee of the Whole that had slugged its way to some unanimity during the summer. Rutledge and the committee rewrote and even changed much of what had been agreed upon. Most importantly, Rutledge was intent on weakening the central government and providing protections for slavery. He was, after all, from South Carolina, and owned as many as 60 slaves, a number that had decreased to only one by the time of his death in 1800. The Committee, which had excluded Madison -- perhaps the members tiring of his pedantic allocutions -- made clear that the Supreme Court was to decide issues and not just offer advisory opinions. As a judge who went on to become the second chief justice, after John Jay, a position of great importance to him. He didn't last long in that position. He had begged for the job and Washington gave it to him as a recess appointment, but then he turned around and gnawed on the hand that tried to help him by vitriolically attacking the treaty that John Jay had concluded for Washington with Great Britain. Rutledge reportedly said in the speech "that he had rather the President should die than sign that puerile instrument"– and that he "preferred war to an adoption of it." His appointment was rejected by the Senate, a first. Rutledge remains the only Supreme Court justice unseated involuntarily by the Senate, serving the shortest term of any justice, 138 days.

In a fit of depression he walked into a river, but as the level reached his neck he was spotted by some slaves who managed to save him from drowning in spite of his kicking and screaming. The great defender of slavery was prevented from taking his life by those whom he wanted to keep enslaved. Several other delegates did not fare well after the convention: two duels and several bankruptcies among their downfalls.

Stewart has told a great story.

*Aaron Burr was heavily involved in speculation. He was accused of conspiring to foment a war with Spain (Andrew Jackson and General Wilkenson were in on it) in order to increase the value of his property in the west. Ultimately, having seriously irritated the Jefferson administration, he was tried for treason, Justice Marshall presiding, but was acquitted.

**Native American rights were nicely eliminated by the Discovery Doctrine, a colonial technique to void aboriginal ownership of lands conquered. It said that any land "discovered" by a European power was owned by that power. This doctrine was a major factor in the Lewis & Clark expedition. It gave the Jefferson administration rights to all the lands they explored. Justice Marshall, in one of his more notorious decisions, validated the doctrine writing, "As a corollary, the "discovering" power gains the exclusive right to extinguish the "right of occupancy" of the Indigenous occupants, which otherwise survived the assumption of sovereignty. " See Miller, Robert J. Discovering Indigenous Lands: The Doctrine of Discovery in the English Colonies. New York: Oxford University Press, 2010 and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovery_doctrine ( )

Told from David O. Stewart's point of view, the Constitution was really born out of a kerfuffle between Virginia and Maryland over access to the Potamac River. It's a unique, if dryer, point of view.

Stewart also distinguishes himself by simultaneously tearing down any illusions about the founding fathers and the Convention while treating both with a wide-eyed, hushed awe and respect. Humanizing the fathers was clearly a necessary chore in Stewart's eyes, as his portrayals of the delegates are destined to leave the men as glossy, two-dimensional, formal painted portraits in the reader's eyes.

Benjamin's Franklin, for example, is explained to have been "ill," but the fact that he had syphilis after whoring around France is never even hinted at. Rather, we are to envision him as an infirm, accomplished and elderly statesman, benevolently diffusing conflicts on occasion.

Likewise, Washington -- who Stewart insists on referring to frequently as "The General"-- and his complete lack of participation is also commented on, belatedly, with awe. More knowledgeable historians know better, and perhaps that is why this aspect of the book left a bad taste in my mouth.

At the same time, Stewart is an attorney, one who has argued before the Supreme Court no less, and his crisp, clear prose reflects what must be his skill for distillation in the interest of proving a point. The book is peppered with a sharp-edged wit that often shows in the form of a delightfully unexpected zinger at the end of a paragraph.

Preventing the book becoming too dry, Stewart is oddly obsessed with what the weather was like on a given day that summer in Philadelphia. Though at first uses this information rather well to convey the atmosphere of the time, it becomes evident after a few chapters that this is the only trick up his sleeve and it wears rather thin towards the end.

Stewart's obviously brilliant legal mind is also his downfall. Rather than being a book about the Constitutional Convention, the majority of book examines the Three-Fifths Compromise and the epic Small-State v. Big States battle over Congressional representation. So much so, in fact, that I feel that this book should be re-titled and is actually a bit misleading.

Part of this is due to Stewart's arranging the book in chronological order. It is in fact true that most of the work on the executive branch was hashed out in committees during the last few weeks of the Convention. It is equally true the slave question, without ever really being mentioned exactly, dominated the debates due to its monstrous impact on representation.

Other historians have opted for consolidation of the issues over chronology, and Stewart's book serves as a good example as to why this is a better approach.Good historical writing takes facts and shapes them into something different, though not inaccurate or unrehearsed, to look at. Stewart, instead, acts more like a modern Madison, transcribing everything clearly but with little life left in the narrative.

Still, this would be a wonderful book for a reader looking to learn more about the Constitution's formation. Stewart is merciless in his disabusing of modern-day falsely held notions, even meticulously chronicling every delegate's end, even the most undignified and sordid.

By underplaying Roger Sherman's role and expanding more on lesser-known delegates, such as Mason and Rutledge, Stewart shows that the Constitution, as disillusioning as it may be, was hammered out by committees and subcommittees, in deals brokered after hours in pubs and by men with ambitions that are not so lofty as we Americans want to believe. He even quotes Madison saying as much.

Stewart also does a wonderful job of illustrating that (contrary to current popular belief), the Convention was held to strengthen the government and most delegates -- though not all -- found the prospect of direct influence on the government a horrifying prospect. The point that the Bill of Rights is, essentially, a rider to ensure ratification by small states left vulnerable by the Three-Fifths Compromise, is well illustrated.

Finally, readers will be firmly disabused of the notion that Jefferson wrote the Constitution, since Stewart points out that -- at the last minute, really -- Alexander Hamilton, John Madison and Goveneur Morris wrote the final draft (Morris, known for his ability to express complicated ideas clearly, took the lead).

Returning again and again to the question of slavery and its overall implications on representation, Stewart argues that it was one of the most detrimental decisions the founders made, and that they knew it at the time, too. The problem is, having won his argument, Stewart goes on about it.

As a result, the formation of the executive, sundry Congressional powers and of course the Elector System get rather short shrift. They feel crammed into the last few chapters and unjustly glossed over.

Still, Stewart's scholarship can not fairly be faulted and his idealism can be forgiven, if for no other reason than the notion of a lawyer with such obvious genuine respect for the Founders arguing before the Supreme Court is a comforting thought.

If someone I knew wanted to know more about the Constitutional Convention, this is without hesitation the book I would recommend to them. If a Con Law geek like me was looking for a good read about the delegates and their debates, I would recommend my personal favorite, Joe Ellis' "Founding Brothers."

Finally, I'd like to make a note on this particular edition. It is a beautiful book. There are wonderful illustrations and the font selection for chapter headings is gorgeous. The illustrations are well-placed and well-chosen. All of which helps, perhaps more than Stewart's weather notes, to set the tone exceedingly well. ( )