The Summer Of 1787: The Men Who Invented The Constitution By David O. Stewart

This book is very well researched and very well written. The author neither glorifies the framers nor disparages them. Rather, he mostly lets the facts speak for themselves. Among those facts were the compromises over slavery, including the three-fifths compromise in which a slave (who could not vote) was to be counted as three-fifths of a white person for purposes of apportioning the numbers of Representatives allotted to each state in the House of Representatives. The effects of the three-fifths clause also carried over into the election of the President, since the number of electors for each state in the electoral college was based on the total number of that state’s Representatives and Senators. Indeed, one of the reasons for the electoral college was that it would incorporate the three-fifths ratio. A direct popular vote for president, which was supported by James Wilson, James Madison, and a few other delegates, would not have given the South that extra boost in selecting the president.

David O. Stewart observes that some sort of compromise over slavery was necessary if a union of all the states was to be formed. However, in the last chapter of his book (pages 261-62), Stewart delineates some of the historical consequences of the compromises embedded in the original Constitution:

“Most obviously, preservation of the slave trade meant the continued importation of many thousands of Africans in chains. The Fugitive Slave Clause gave slave owners a critical tool for enforcing their dominion over the people they held in bondage.

“Though less obvious in its impact, the three-fifths ratio rankled for decades. By granting additional representation based on slaves, that clause enhanced southern power, as reflected in many measures:

“• Ten of the first fifteen presidents were slave owners.

“• John Adams would have won a second term as president but for twelve electoral votes cast for Jefferson (and Burr) that represented southern slaves (counted at three-fifths of their real number).

“• For twenty-seven of the nation’s first thirty-five years, southerners sat as Speaker of the House of Representatives.

“• Nineteen of the first thirty-four Supreme Court justices were slaveholders.

“Because of the three-fifths ratio, Virginia in the 1790s had six more congressmen than did Pennsylvania even though both states had roughly the same number of free inhabitants. The three-fifths ratio gave slave states fourteen extra seats in the House in 1793, twenty-seven additional seats in 1812, and twenty-five added seats in 1833.

“Those extra votes meant that when crises erupted over slavery in 1820, in 1850, and in 1856, slave owners in positions of power ensured that the political system did not challenge human bondage. House seats created by the three-fifths rule allowed Missouri to be admitted as a slave state in 1820, and ensured enactment of the 1840 gag rule that choked off antislavery petitions to Congress.”

Stewart explains that “[h]istorians disagree over the terrible bargains that the Convention struck over slavery. Some insist that the delegates did the best they could under the circumstances.” However, “[o]thers counter that the northern delegates caved in too easily to implausible southern threats to abandon the Union.” Specifically, Georgia and South Carolina, the states that most demanded concessions to slavery, probably could not have survived outside the union as result of their respective dire circumstances. The author concludes that “[f]or all they have been celebrated, the delegates bear responsibility for having entrenched slavery ever deeper, for not even beginning to express disapproval of it.” Ibid., 262-63.

But Stewart is careful in his examination of the history of the Constitutional Convention. He observes, in more than one place, that the New England states, which benefited economically from the slave trade due to their shipping interests, were more than willing to accommodate Georgia and South Carolina on slavery. Strangely, it was James Madison and George Mason, both slaveholding Virginians, who had the most compunctions about slavery. Although Thomas Jefferson, another slaveholding Virginian, was also on record against this practice, he did not attend the Convention because he was representing the United States in Paris at the time. But although Madison, Mason, and Jefferson were conflicted about slavery, they never (with a few exceptions) actually freed their own slaves. That was the legacy of another Virginian, George Washington, whose Will contained provisions that led to the emancipation of his slaves within two years after his death. Washington was the presiding officer of the Convention. Although he spoke little, he was respected by virtually all of the other delegates.

I strongly recommend this book.

This was a very interesting book. It was very detailed and gave a lot of information on the thinking and reasoning behind the sections of the Constitution. It also explained the politics and how the different colonies’ power plays had a big influence on the major decisions of the Article of our Constitution.. I did laugh out loud at some of the Framers’ descriptions of the other members at the Convention. The descriptions did knock them off the pedestals of history. It was not a quick read but worth it.

We are so fortunate to have had so many well written books about this time appear in the last few years.

So few of us in America really understand what the Constitution says and what it means, and fewer of us know the story of the struggles to stitch together thirteen loosely confederated states into a country.

Stewart has created a gripping narrative that paints the personal dramas these men had to navigate to establish the United States. There were many times I found myself anxious about whether the effort would succeed, even though we all know how it turned out. It is fascinating to learn the pressures and the priorities of the different people and groups that had to come together and reach some resolution in order for our contry to be born. And even more to learn of the amazing individuals who played pivotal roles in that miracle; both the ones who remain famous (I am more amazed each time I hear about how George Washington somehow managed to so delicately balanced his role to lead the country without permitting himself to accept the royal position so many wanted to give him – if only any of today’s politicians could learn from his example), and the many whose accomplishments have been all but lost to today’s students.

I believe textbooks, especially history texts, are written with the express intention of pursuading kids to hate the topic. That they can pursuade curious young minds that events like the American Revolution are boring is a tragic but mighty feat. Stewart, who clearly has a deep interest in and love for the topic, is the perfect antithesis.

Whle I find the story of the writing of the Constitution fascinating, this book was a very slow read. I think such a large topic like this is difficult to fit in such a thin book, and therefore, the book is somewhat confusing, and a lot seems glossed over. It would have also been helpful to highlight how the constitution is now compared to how it turned out then, for clarity’s sake. Given that the title of the book is “The Men Who Invented the Constitution,” it would have been nice for Stewart to have expanded more on the characters and made the story a bit more human, as the majority of the book focuses on the constitutional debates. But, if you are looking for a brief synopsis of the major debates that formed the Constitution, then this book is a good start. Plus, Stewart gives a good feel for the atmosphere. All in all, a decent book, but not spectacular.