• Complain

Pauline Maier - Ratification: The People Debate the Constitution, 1787-1788

Here you can read online Pauline Maier - Ratification: The People Debate the Constitution, 1787-1788 full text of the book (entire story) in english for free. Download pdf and epub, get meaning, cover and reviews about this ebook. year: 2011, publisher: Simon & Schuster, genre: Politics. Description of the work, (preface) as well as reviews are available. Best literature library LitArk.com created for fans of good reading and offers a wide selection of genres:

Romance novel Science fiction Adventure Detective Science History Home and family Prose Art Politics Computer Non-fiction Religion Business Children Humor

Choose a favorite category and find really read worthwhile books. Enjoy immersion in the world of imagination, feel the emotions of the characters or learn something new for yourself, make an fascinating discovery.

No cover
  • Book:
    Ratification: The People Debate the Constitution, 1787-1788
  • Author:
  • Publisher:
    Simon & Schuster
  • Genre:
  • Year:
    2011
  • Rating:
    3 / 5
  • Favourites:
    Add to favourites
  • Your mark:
    • 60
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
    • 5

Ratification: The People Debate the Constitution, 1787-1788: summary, description and annotation

We offer to read an annotation, description, summary or preface (depends on what the author of the book "Ratification: The People Debate the Constitution, 1787-1788" wrote himself). If you haven't found the necessary information about the book — write in the comments, we will try to find it.

When the delegates left the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia in September 1787, the new Constitution they had written was no more than a proposal. Elected conventions in at least nine of the thirteen states would have to ratify it before it could take effect. There was reason to doubt whether that would happen. The document we revere today as the foundation of our countrys laws, the cornerstone of our legal system, was hotly disputed at the time. Some Americans denounced the Constitution for threatening the liberty that Americans had won at great cost in the Revolutionary War. One group of fiercely patriotic opponents even burned the document in a raucous public demonstration on the Fourth of July.

In this splendid new history, Pauline Maier tells the dramatic story of the yearlong battle over ratification that brought such famous founders as Washington, Hamilton, Madison, Jay, and Henry together with less well-known Americans who sometimes eloquently and always passionately expressed their hopes and fears for their new country. Men argued in taverns and coffeehouses; women joined the debate in their parlors; broadsides and newspaper stories advocated various points of view and excoriated others. In small towns and counties across the country people read the document carefully and knew it well. Americans seized the opportunity to play a role in shaping the new nation. Then the ratifying conventions chosen by We the People scrutinized and debated the Constitution clause by clause.

Although many books have been written about the Constitutional Convention, this is the first major history of ratification. It draws on a vast new collection of documents and tells the story with masterful attention to detail in a dynamic narrative. Each states experience was different, and Maier gives each its due even as she focuses on the four critical states of Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, Virginia, and New York, whose approval of the Constitution was crucial to its success.

The New Yorker Gilbert Livingston called his participation in the ratification convention the greatest transaction of his life. The hundreds of delegates to the ratifying conventions took their responsibility seriously, and their careful inspection of the Constitution can tell us much today about a document whose meaning continues to be subject to interpretation. Ratification is the story of the founding drama of our nation, superbly told in a history that transports readers back more than two centuries to reveal the convictions and aspirations on which our country was built

Pauline Maier: author's other books


Who wrote Ratification: The People Debate the Constitution, 1787-1788? Find out the surname, the name of the author of the book and a list of all author's works by series.

Ratification: The People Debate the Constitution, 1787-1788 — read online for free the complete book (whole text) full work

Below is the text of the book, divided by pages. System saving the place of the last page read, allows you to conveniently read the book "Ratification: The People Debate the Constitution, 1787-1788" online for free, without having to search again every time where you left off. Put a bookmark, and you can go to the page where you finished reading at any time.

Light

Font size:

Reset

Interval:

Bookmark:

Make

To the memory of my mother,

Charlotte Rose Winterer Rubbelke
(February 23, 1917November 8, 2009),

and my fellow historian, mentor, and dear friend,
Thomas N. Brown

(April 27, 1920October 23, 2009)

POSTSCRIPT
Ratification The People Debate the Constitution 1787-1788 - image 1
In Memoriam

In the pages of this book, the dead seemed at times to rise from their graves to repeat lines that had earned them a place in American history, a place many of them never received until now. It feels wrong to close without knowing what happened to at least some of them after the ratifying conventions adjourned.

Those who later served in national office are the least obscure. James Iredell was well rewarded for his services at the North Carolina convention in Hillsborough: In February 1790, President Washington nominated him as an associate justice of the Supreme Court. His fellow justices included ratification veterans James Wilson of Pennsylvania, William Cushing of Massachusetts, and Chief Justice John Jay, whose place would later be taken by Connecticuts Oliver Ellsworth. Iredell was delighted with the appointment, which he thought would free him from traveling from court to court in North Carolina to cobble together a decent living. Unfortunately, early Court judges had to ride circuit, and Iredell was assigned the extraordinarily long and arduous Southern circuit through North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia.

His position as an associate Supreme Court justice gave him an opportunity to hear Patrick Henry at court. Iredell seems to have had a bad impression of Henry, and he was agreeably surprised. Gracious God! Iredell wrote afterwards, he is an orator indeed! Henry spoke with the most ease, the least embarrassment, the greatest variety, and with an illustration of imagery altogether original but perfectly correct, Iredell reported; and he never said anything personally offensive. In the end, after spending time with Henry, Iredell concluded that he was a much more solid character and better reasoner than I expected. Clearly men could not be judged in the light of Party Prejudices.

Eventually the justices rotated circuits, but Iredells duties still kept him away from his family for extended periods of time, and the rigors of eighteenth-century travel ate away at his frail health. In the end, they killed him.

He had survived Wilson, who, in July of 1798, also died in Edenton, in a small Carolina inn, broken, impoverished, and humiliated after two stints in jail (while still an associate justice of the Supreme Court) for debts from ambitious land speculations that had gone horribly wrong. Barely recovered from malaria and suffering the aftereffects of a stroke, Wilson died a month short of age fifty-six. The contrast between the brilliant man who had held his nose high in Philadelphia, whether or not to keep his spectacles in place, and the pathetic circumstances of his death made the last years of his life an epic tragedy. His colleague Justice Iredell had him buried on the estate of Iredells brother-in-law, Governor Samuel Johnston. There Wilson rested until 1906, when, finally, Philadelphia reclaimed his remains.

George Washington survived both Iredell and Wilsonand also his neighbor, George Mason, who died peacefully at home in October 1792. He also outlived Patrick Henry, who in June 1799 succumbed to stomach cancerbut not by much. Washingtons wish to leave the presidency quickly came to nothing. He served a second term, then issued a final farewell to his country. Iredell recorded the bittersweet mood at Washingtons birthday celebration during February 1797, when everyone knew the president would soon leave office. The first lady was moved to tears; the president felt emotions too powerful to be concealed. Washington lived only a little over two years back at Mount Vernon, until December 1799, when, at age sixty-seven, he died, quite suddenly, of a virulent throat infection. That was not enough time for him to settle his affairs, get his plantation house up to standard, make his farms profitable, or even to complete the agricultural experiments that gave him such pleasure.

Washingtons storylike that of Alexander Hamilton, who died after a duel with Aaron Burr in 1804, and Madison, who lived until 1836, when he was the last surviving member of the federal Conventionhas often been told. Those of others, who came out of obscurity for a brief, brilliant moment in 1787 or 1788, are less familiar.

Take William Symmes, the young attorney who stood up to his old law teacher, Theophilus Parsons, at the Massachusetts ratifying convention and noted the flaw in Federalist claims that to weaken Congress would be to weaken the people. Symmes never had the brilliant public career for which he seemed destined. His constituents in Andover, Massachusetts, most of whom did not think well of the Constitution, might have resented his yea vote on ratification. Or maybe he just found practicing law in rural Andover a hard way to make a living. Whatever the reason, in the fall of 1790 he hung his shingle in the growing commercial town of Portland, Maine, where he became a leading member of the bar. Symmes occasionally wrote essays for

Zachariah Johnston, whose speech endorsing the Constitution seemed to some the best at the Virginia convention, exceeding even those of Patrick Henry, remained a member of the Virginia legislature (and an enthusiast for developing the Potomac River) until a few years before his death in 1800. He was also an elector in the first presidential contest, but chose not to run for Congress. Perhaps he wanted to remain nearer his many children, to whom he had expressed so deep a commitment.

Other backbenchers like Jonathan Smith from Lanesborough, Massachusetts, whose heartfelt endorsement of the Constitution seemed to move the convention in Boston, or Amos Singletary from Sutton, Massachusetts, both of whom served several terms in the state legislature, are all but forgotten. They were part of the rank-and-file that made town democracy and representative state government work. Only rarely do their words survive outside the records of their state ratifying conventions unlesslike Singletary, who had complained about monied men, fancy lawyers, and this here self-same constitutionthey had a peculiarly memorable way of expressing themselves. The historian of Singletarys home town told a story about him from a period long before 1788, when the town was shaken by a religious revival. A local manufacturer of hoes being under concern of mind caught sight of Singletary, who was a justice of the peace and an earnest Christian, and called out to him: O Squire! O Squire! What shall I do to be saved? Singletary had scarcely brought his horse to a stop when he answered: Put more steel in your hoes. The man never spent a day in school, but he was no fool. He died in 1806, in his mid-eighties.

The political careers of both Gilbert Livingston and Melancton Smith peaked at the New York ratifying convention. Later both served briefly in the state legislature, but neither held further public offices. Smiths yea vote had allowed him a safe return home in the summer of 1788, but being in New York City still had its perils. He was the one of the first to dieat age fifty-fourduring the citys 1798 yellow fever epidemic.

Smiths convention colleague John Lansing, who in 1788 kept faith with his party and no doubt his conscience by voting nay, lived longer than Smith and held more public offices. He became a member of the state supreme court in 1790 and later its chief justice. In 1801 he replaced his old convention opponent Robert R. Livingston as the states chancellor, an extremely distinguished judicial position that he seems to have acquitted honorably. (Reports that Lansings knowledge of the law was not extensive,

Next page
Light

Font size:

Reset

Interval:

Bookmark:

Make

Similar books «Ratification: The People Debate the Constitution, 1787-1788»

Look at similar books to Ratification: The People Debate the Constitution, 1787-1788. We have selected literature similar in name and meaning in the hope of providing readers with more options to find new, interesting, not yet read works.


Reviews about «Ratification: The People Debate the Constitution, 1787-1788»

Discussion, reviews of the book Ratification: The People Debate the Constitution, 1787-1788 and just readers' own opinions. Leave your comments, write what you think about the work, its meaning or the main characters. Specify what exactly you liked and what you didn't like, and why you think so.