I wasn't sure about reading this concise account of the Constitutional Convention because I know nothing of the reputation of the author, a historian at Baruch College, and she does not include footnotes. Every scholarly work should have footnotes!
But Gordon Wood endorses it on the back of the book as well as Molly Ivins so I gave it a go. It's okay, but I didn't learn anything new.
If nothing else, the author gives the reader a strong feeling for the compromises that went into the final product. Anyone like Judge Scalia who goes by "originalism" is clearly mistaken. Our Constitution wasn't written on stone tablets. It was the best that these 55 men could come up with and nothing more. I think they would be appalled at Judge Scalia and his "dead" document.
The book reinforces in my mind that the delegates dealt with the establishment of the new executive branch at the end of the conclave. I am reminded that they were most concerned with the legislative branch, which was common for the 18th Century.
The author doesn't deal much with slavery, and this is a weakness in her presentation. This is the subject of most interest to me. Madison said the biggest differences were between the slave and the non-slave states, not the big states vs. the small states, and the author does not mention this.
The book is worth reading, but I will not be referring back to it.
1 comment:
Footnotes are a must.
Post a Comment