Ratification: The People Debate the Constitution, 1787-1788

With the current political rhetoric continually referring to the creation of the United States and the government under the Constitution, attention needs to be paid to the ratification process. Since Constitutional originalists insist on purity in their concept of what the Constitution means, it is only right to study how the Constitution was created. To that end, the ratification process is just as important to that issue as the Constitutional Convention itself. The Convention was only one phase of the process of changing the government of the United States. Getting the Constitution ratified was the second part and as the documents of the past show us, far more difficult than the creation was. Pauline Maier, the William Rand Kenan, Jr. Professor of American History at MIT has written what is the most exhaustive examination of the ratification process to date. Utilizing records from the conventions and state legislatures, private letters from delegates, and newspaper accounts she has reconstructed what took place at the conventions and more importantly, why events occurred as they did. The result is a very detail oriented book that explores what the men who attended the conventions were thinking as well as the factions in the states that were for and against ratification. She makes it perfectly clear that ratification was not a slam dunk affair, but instead a very iffy proposition that came very close to failing. We know today that eleven of the thirteen states ratified the Constitution and commenced operating under it in March of 1789. What most people do not know is that this almost did not occur. Quite possibly a very different national history could have transpired, potentially one that created multiple nations instead of the America we know today. The Constitutional Convention was not employed to create a totally new government, and Congress could easily have decided not to send the proposed Constitution to the states for their legislatures to decide upon calling for a ratification convention or not. However, Congress did decide to send it on as they deemed it was legal to do so under the Articles of Confederation. Had they thought it was not legal, they certainly would not have done so. Once the states received the Constitution with its proposed national government, the legislatures had to decide whether they should call for a ratification convention or not. One state, Rhode Island, decided not to do so and its legislature voted against ratification. The rest of the states did call for conventions and set forth voting parameters and delegate qualifications. Maier covers this as the process was important and resulted in delegates being elected on the basis of being for or against ratification while in some states a great many were elected because they had not made up their minds and wanted to do so at the convention based on what they learned. Maier also reminds us repeatedly that this was the late 18th century where communications were only as fast as a horse could carry a rider. She also points out how unusual it is to modern readers that delegates in that era were elected to make up their minds later when they went through the information instead of staking out a position one way or the other in many cases. The contrast between that idea and today’s election process stands out. Maier covers each convention in the order they happened. While some conventions were smaller and a large majority predisposed for ratification, important questions were asked. Maier points out the basic arguments which were brought up in each convention as well as the defenses which countered them. She also addresses where deviations from the discussion took place and why. She does not invent an interpretation, but rather relies on solid work with primary source documents to construct her interpretation of the process. While some states had sparse records of their conventions for political reasons, Maier dug up additional sources which show there was a solid core of opposition in most states. She delves into the background of the prominent delegates who took part in the process, but she also brings many of the minor delegates to the forefront, men who could be considered as minor Founders. These delegates played a role albeit secondary to the main figures, but still important as in a few states the voting came down to several men who either switched their votes from their original positions or made up their minds on the last day. Maier’s book contends that while the Federalist Papers were written during this period, their impact on the various conventions was slight. She refers to it in explaining what James Madison, John Jay, or Alexander Hamilton thought of the Constitution, but does not use it as a means of explaining what everyone thought. In fact, she goes to great lengths to show that there were many different opinions on both sides of the argument and that even the men who signed the Constitution at the Convention had differing opinions on most of the articles in it. This is important because the concept of originalism is dependent upon the idea that the Founders were in agreement on what they were doing. The complete opposite is true. Often they agreed that something needed to be done in a certain way, but they disagreed on why it should be done. All in all, this is an outstanding book for any student of the Constitution to read. Readers will finish it with the realization that ratification almost failed. They will also emerge knowing that unlike today’s politicians who continually fight and work to impede the progress of legislation that has already been made law, the men of the ratification conventions worked to create a national government regardless of how they voted at the conventions. They worked together once the votes were finished in order to create a more perfect union. They disagreed on many issues, but once the voting ended they abided by the results and worked to make things better. Maier shows this result as well as how each person’s individual beliefs and personalities influenced each other. Many historians of this period remark on this as well. This book is highly recommended for students of this era as it is quite informative in explaining how the Constitution became the frame for the new national government and why certain events occurred as they did. Quite often the personalities of the people played important roles in those events. The example of James Madison barely being elected to the first House of Representatives is a good example of how personalities clashed over ratification. Also, the fact that George Washington favored ratification and the fact that practically every delegate assumed that Washington would serve as the nation’s first president is brought up in several chapters. In the end, that could have been one of the factors that changed a few delegate’s minds about ratifying the Constitution. As stated earlier, Maier’s depiction of the events brings them to life and makes the participants human. That in turn makes this book a great read and a worthwhile addition to any history scholar’s library.

I am a retired history instructor/librarian. My field is U.S. Civil War and Reconstruction. I decided to become a student again and study the American Revolution. Because of vision restrictions, Ilisten. I absolutely loved  Washington: A Life  by Ron Chernow and narrated by Scott Brick. I wish Scott Brick had narrated this book. Johnny Heller has won awards. But he is extremely difficult to follow, with starts, stops, and stumbles. If there are errors in the quotations, forgive me. Thank you. Empty your Amazon shopping carts at once and purchase all of Maier's work in printed form. How I hope they will be re-issued at some point in CD format.There are three titles. In order of original publication date they are: (1) From Resistance to Revolution: Colonial Radicals and the Development of American Opposition to Britain, 1765-1776 . (2) Old Revolutionaries .(3) American Scripture: Making the Declaration of Independence . Maier feeds us the meat, the fat, the gristle of her story. With the final words of her introduction, she pulls us in as we watch andwait to see what happens: "It's almost Christmas in 1786. An early winter ice storm has kept aretired general from collecting his mail from the near by town of Alexandria. Now, at long last, he is ripping open a letter from Richmond." The retired general is George Washington. The writer of the letter is Virginia's governor, Edmund Randolph. He is urging Washington to attend the proposed constitutional convention in Philadelphia in May, 1787. Maier notes that Virigina was largely responsible for that gathering, and Washington, along with six other Virginians, answers his governor's plea. He does not, however, attend the Richmond ratification convention in June, 1788. His voice is heard. But his view is from Mount Vernon. Based largely upon a 21-volume work, THE DOCUMENTARY HISTORY OF THE RATIFICATION OF THE CONSTITUTION, published since 1976 by the Wisconsin Historical Society, Pauline Maier's book looks at the life and times of the new nation, the major players, the back-benchers, who meet in the state ratification conventions. According to Maier this process was "the first national elecvtion, although it was more like a series of primaries than a presidential elecvtion, since the votes were cast, not on a single day, but successively in one state after another." The four major conventions took place in New Y9ork, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts and Virginia, the largest state, with one - fifth of the territory and one - sixth of the population. As in some other states, a so - called "short-hand man" was employed to record the proceedings. In the case of Virigina and North Carolina, it was lawyer, David Robertson. In Virginia his efforts produced three volumes and over 600 pages, the largest state document. In North Carolina he hired a child to help him. With terrible results. And North Carolina held two conventions! Virginia's delegates also employed a chaplain to lead them in daily prayer, the only state to do so. At times I found the speeches difficult and boring. But over 60 personalities came to life. Convention cities were seen in amazing detail. Federal celebrations were recorded with their great ringing of bells, firing of guns, raising of hogsheads of punch as toasts were proclaimed.There was no celebraton in Richmond, however, out of respect for those against the constitution.And, Maier carefully notes that she does not call them "anti - federalists," since that was a federalist term. Instead, she will say the "antis"or "critics of the constitution." Virginia had hoped to become the critical ninth state to ratify. She was the tenth. On July 4, 1788, Delaware became number nine and in Wilmington the following toast was shouted out:"To Farmer washington. May he like a second Cincinatus be called from the plough to rule a great people." At the end of the book, the author includes the Constitution of the United States and its first Ten Ammendments with the statement that Georgia, Massachusetts and Connecticut did not ratify those amendments until 1939!