David O. Stewart’s The Summer of 1787: the Men Who Wrote the Constitution provides an un-biased historical account on how the constitution came to be. The book begins in post-revolutionary war America under the failed Articles of Confederation to the constitutional convention and through the ratification process of the constitution. It provides the readers with an in depth look at the hard ball the founding fathers played to create a government that could deal with a violent rebellion, mass debt, and the states conflicting goals. The goal of The Summer of 1787 the Men Who Wrote the Constitution is to enlighten readers on how the constitution came to be by illustrating how the founding fathers personalities affected the process by providing a deeper look into these key figures personal life’s and how their experiences shaped their political views.
1.Robertson states the founding fathers were politicians because they understood how to compromise, maintain political support even while conducting unpopular political activities, and balance conflicting demands. This is epitomized in James Madison because even when he did not achieve his whole goal, he still settled for “half a loaf rather than none.” His use of political strategy and willingness to compromise, shows that he and the rest of the founding fathers were not just political philosophers, scientists, or speculators, but politicians. 2.Robertson remarks some of the key reasons the founding fathers were successful in forming a new government is because during the time period they were framing the constitution there were volatile,
The Summer of 1787 was written by David O. Stewart as a historical, non-fiction recount of the events leading to the Constitutions adoption hundreds of years ago. David O. Stewart is extremely qualified to put together such a book. Mr. Stewart is a prolific author in matters of politics and history. In addition, Mr. Stewart studied law at Yale, a highly praised institution. From his studies in modern law to reading all 500 pages of James Madison’s notes from the constitutional convention, Mr. Stewart has the motivation and intelligence to effectively narrate the time before the constitutions implementation.
From 1787-1790 the ratification of the American Constitution became fight between two different political methods of judgment. America 's best political personalities accumulated in Philadelphia to discuss shared opinion in a legislative structure. The Constitution itself did not say political groups, and it was expected that none was going to emerge. Be that as it may, this was soon demonstrated wrong when the level headed discussions between the Federalists and Anti-Federalists in 1787 and 1788 blend into a two gathering framework. This soon prompted a changeless component in American approaches.
The background of “Unruly Americans: and the origins of the Constitution” by Woody Holton is how the American society was taught to believe that the US Constitution was created to encourage democracy and protect civil rights. However, Holton offers a different view. He even goes to the extent of stating that, in 1776 the 13 colonies of North America left the Empire of Britain and 55 of the world’s most notable men known as the Founding Fathers work on the Constitution in Philadelphia as it became the most powerful and wealthiest state in 1787. The Framers’ gathered 1787 and they only could help citizens partially, yet their motives were never revealed. The purpose of the Constitution was to help America more attractive to investors.
Ancient sources were one of the major historical influences on the United States Constitution. One of the reasons that ancient sources was a large influence on the Constitution was because Romans founded the idea of republicanism. Republicanism is when people elect representatives to carry out their wishes. Elected representatives in Ancient Rome made decisions on behalf of the Roman people. The writers of the Constitution supported this idea because it would provide their country with representatives in government.
After a fiercely fought revolution, the newly independent American nation struggled to establish a concrete government amidst an influx of opposing ideologies. Loosely tied together by the Articles of Confederation, the thirteen sovereign states were far from united. As growing schisms in American society became apparent, an array of esteemed, prominent American men united in 1787 to form the basis of the United States government: the Constitution. Among the most eminent members of this convention were Alexander Hamilton, Aaron Burr, James Madison, and Thomas Jefferson. These men, held to an almost godly stature, defined the future of the nation; but were their intentions as honest as they seemed?
The American government that we know today, had many troubles when it first came together when the Constitution was first ratified in 1788. There had been many failed attempts at creating a new and successful government, such as the Articles of Confederation the first plan for the new American government. This proved to be very unsuccessful because the states held all federal power, while the national government had very little. In order to please both the Federalists and the Anti-Federalist, each party agreed to the Constitution with the addition of the Bill of Rights. Documents like the Virginia Declaration of Rights, the Declaration of Independence, and the above documents are heavily influenced by the writings of John Locke, Baron de Montesquieu,
The Columbian Exchange was a time of trade between the Old World (Europe) and the New World (Americas). This event occurred in 1492, when Columbus began his first voyage between the two worlds. The exchange brought drastic change for the Europeans and the Native Americans. There were four main components exchanged throughout this time including: diseases, plants, animals, and people. This event was necessary in history because it opened up trade ways between the two worlds and helped modernize the economy of the two.
The Constitution—the foundation of the American government—has been quintessential for the lives of the American people for over 200 years. Without this document America today would not have basic human rights, such as those stated in the Bill of Rights, which includes freedom of speech and religion. To some, the Constitution was an embodiment of the American Revolution, yet others believe that it was a betrayal of the Revolution. I personally believe that the Constitution did betray the Revolution because it did not live up to the ideals of the Revolution, and the views of the Anti-Federalists most closely embodied the “Spirit of ‘76.” During the midst of the American Revolution, authors and politicians of important documents, pamphlets, and slogans spread the basis for Revolutionary ideals and defined what is known as the “Spirit of ‘76”.
Justice Thurgood Marshall Response Justice Thurgood Marshall said in his “Reflections on the Bicentennial of the United States Constitution”, “I do not believe the meaning of the Constitution was forever ‘fixed’ at the Philadelphia Convention. Nor do I find the wisdom, foresight, and sense of justice exhibited by the framers particularly profound. To the contrary, the government they devised was defective from the start, requiring several amendments, a civil war, and momentous social transformation to attain the system of constitutional government and its respect for the individual freedoms and human rights, that we hold as fundamental as today” (Marshall). In this passage of his essay, Judge Marshall is critical of the government that is
Ton Nguyen PSCI 183 202 Spring 2018 Essay Prompt: In 'Freedom's Plow', Langston Hughes offers a reading of the Declaration of Independence. Consider this reading alongside the alternative Declarations we read for class. Do these documents point towards something missing from the Declaration of Independence?
In Danielle Allen’s article for The Atlantic, “The Flawed Genius of the Constitution,” she explores her opinion regarding the U.S. Constitution through analyzing its origin along with its current standing as a historical document. The Constitution is arguably one of the most fundamental legal documents that continues to define our nation today. However, the foundation of the Constitution and its initial implications have been frowned upon for decades. Two of the most essential aspects of the Constitution, universal suffrage and freedom for all, were not defended by the document upon its initial ratification. As such, to be “in support” of the constitution is a convoluted claim with many connotations; in her article, Allen works to sort through
The new constitution, a document granting the framework for a new democratic government, replacing the Articles of the Confederation. This new document gained approval from some of the citizens, but also raised questions and concerns from others. There was a constant back and forth between the two groups on whether or not the constitution should be ratified. This editorial provides historical background on the issue and expresses my opinion on which side I would’ve chosen.
