What do you think?
Rate this book
The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787: 1937 Revised Edition in Four Volumes, Volume 2
The Federal Convention of 1787 engaged in the great and complex labor of framing the constitution for the union of the states. For thirty years afterwards, little was known of its deliberations, and nothing official was published. The variety of versions which began to appear thereafter tended to confuse rather than clarify the situation. When Mr. Farrand undertook the voluminous task of gathering into a single unit all available records which had been written or published by the Convention participants, he found that accuracy became the most important and the most difficult aspect of his task. Yet the accuracy he achieved has proved to be the most significant feature of his undertaking. The thoroughness of his research has made The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787 the one most authoritative source for students of constitutional law as well as lawyers and legislators who seek to understand the spirit of the Constitution in their interpretations of its provisions.
The documents are reprinted exactly from the originals and presented in chronological sequence. Throughout Mr. Farrand discriminated carefully between statements of proceedings in the Convention and theoretical interpretations of clauses in the constitution, including only the former in his work. His footnotes provide cross references to the most important subjects and his general index is as exhaustive as possible. He also includes a special index, giving references for every clause in the adopted Constitution to enable the reader to trace the origin and development of any particular clause and to find every item within the Records that bears upon it. Originally published in 1911 in three volumes, the Revised Edition, published in 1937, incorporated in a fourth supplementary volume new material which came to light after the first printing. The Yale University Press is now pleased to announce the publication of the four-volume Revised Edition in paper-bound format.
“Will now be the standard authority on the work of Constitutional convention of 1787.”― New York Times
“Historians and constitutional lawyers have long desired to see all the records that exist of the formation of the Federal constitution, gathered into a record which shall be at once correct, critical, and comprehensive. Their wish is now gratified.”― The Nation
The documents are reprinted exactly from the originals and presented in chronological sequence. Throughout Mr. Farrand discriminated carefully between statements of proceedings in the Convention and theoretical interpretations of clauses in the constitution, including only the former in his work. His footnotes provide cross references to the most important subjects and his general index is as exhaustive as possible. He also includes a special index, giving references for every clause in the adopted Constitution to enable the reader to trace the origin and development of any particular clause and to find every item within the Records that bears upon it. Originally published in 1911 in three volumes, the Revised Edition, published in 1937, incorporated in a fourth supplementary volume new material which came to light after the first printing. The Yale University Press is now pleased to announce the publication of the four-volume Revised Edition in paper-bound format.
“Will now be the standard authority on the work of Constitutional convention of 1787.”― New York Times
“Historians and constitutional lawyers have long desired to see all the records that exist of the formation of the Federal constitution, gathered into a record which shall be at once correct, critical, and comprehensive. Their wish is now gratified.”― The Nation
667 pages, Paperback
First published September 10, 1967
About the author
Max Farrand
123 books1 followerDr. Max Farrand was a professor and writer of American history. He graduated from Princeton (A. B., 1892; Ph.D., 1896) and was the first director of the Huntington Library.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews
June 7, 2024
A book that is too "primary source". Better off reading analysis instead.
March 5, 2015
To actually go back and get a feel for the evolution of the Constitution is pretty fascinating. Because I teach the Constitution, clause by clause, I feel like I know it. But it seems I only know its public face.
Seeing the debate shows me in living color that the issue for the penning of the Constitution was simple: the States were weary of each other (arguing over basic issues like taxation and trade) but realized they had no way to survive economically without each other, much less survive foreign hostilities or internal discord. They needed exclusive access to ports and raw materials, and would not endure if alliances were made with the Old World.
So, a stronger alliance than the Articles was necessary.
You see in much of the discussion that the Constitution is a document meant to protect not only local rule but business interests and enterprises. Much of this was exacerbated by the disagreement over the role of slavery in the Union.
The South had to be included for this Union to work, yet prevailing winds surrounding the creation of the Congress emphasized majority rule for the eastern and middle states. The minority rights of the South were to be guaranteed, and these guarantees are visible in key compromises (which would alter the course of American history later.)
1. Representation was to be NOT based on how much revenue a state generated for the union, as the north wanted. Instead, it was to be based on population.
2. That population would include an allowance of the South to gain more representation for its slaves, (3/5ths to be precise) even though those slaves would never be represented. In exchange for this representation for "property," the South would have to pay an equal tax on slaves much like we pay taxes on property today.
3. The South would be given equal representation in the Senate to all other states, so that the Southern states can ally together and try to overcome the desires of the Eastern and Middle states (But they were still initially outnumbered). This preference to reflect the will of the states, and therefore underscore a federal structure, is why appointments (with the senatorial courtesy) and treaties are given to the Senate.
4. A fear that taxes on the raw materials produced in the South and then sent to Northern states for export would be the way the North would destroy slavery. The North disliked slavery, either because it was unfair economic advantage or it was unethical, and did not like the political power conceded to the South. A ban on export taxes was allowed to preserve the economic livelihood of the South.
The North got much out of this arrangement, too. They got a Union, proportional representation in the House, and a ban on slave trade (which was the easiest way for the South to increase its population and therefore representation). The North needed a union to engage in trade with whomever it chose, and to keep the British from skipping over their shipping ports and going straight to the South.
Discussions also ranged about whether the North should have to quell a slave revolt, or any other kind of internal strife relating to preserving the slave trade. This did not prove to be true, as the North was complicit with the Fugitive Slave Act later, as well as all manner of other laws that had the North directly and indirectly protecting slavery, until they chose not to. (less)
Seeing the debate shows me in living color that the issue for the penning of the Constitution was simple: the States were weary of each other (arguing over basic issues like taxation and trade) but realized they had no way to survive economically without each other, much less survive foreign hostilities or internal discord. They needed exclusive access to ports and raw materials, and would not endure if alliances were made with the Old World.
So, a stronger alliance than the Articles was necessary.
You see in much of the discussion that the Constitution is a document meant to protect not only local rule but business interests and enterprises. Much of this was exacerbated by the disagreement over the role of slavery in the Union.
The South had to be included for this Union to work, yet prevailing winds surrounding the creation of the Congress emphasized majority rule for the eastern and middle states. The minority rights of the South were to be guaranteed, and these guarantees are visible in key compromises (which would alter the course of American history later.)
1. Representation was to be NOT based on how much revenue a state generated for the union, as the north wanted. Instead, it was to be based on population.
2. That population would include an allowance of the South to gain more representation for its slaves, (3/5ths to be precise) even though those slaves would never be represented. In exchange for this representation for "property," the South would have to pay an equal tax on slaves much like we pay taxes on property today.
3. The South would be given equal representation in the Senate to all other states, so that the Southern states can ally together and try to overcome the desires of the Eastern and Middle states (But they were still initially outnumbered). This preference to reflect the will of the states, and therefore underscore a federal structure, is why appointments (with the senatorial courtesy) and treaties are given to the Senate.
4. A fear that taxes on the raw materials produced in the South and then sent to Northern states for export would be the way the North would destroy slavery. The North disliked slavery, either because it was unfair economic advantage or it was unethical, and did not like the political power conceded to the South. A ban on export taxes was allowed to preserve the economic livelihood of the South.
The North got much out of this arrangement, too. They got a Union, proportional representation in the House, and a ban on slave trade (which was the easiest way for the South to increase its population and therefore representation). The North needed a union to engage in trade with whomever it chose, and to keep the British from skipping over their shipping ports and going straight to the South.
Discussions also ranged about whether the North should have to quell a slave revolt, or any other kind of internal strife relating to preserving the slave trade. This did not prove to be true, as the North was complicit with the Fugitive Slave Act later, as well as all manner of other laws that had the North directly and indirectly protecting slavery, until they chose not to. (less)
August 27, 2013
It's pretty amazing to see where the plan for government started from compared to how it ended up. As many members noted, the form, while important, is of no use if the people are incapable of maintaining their own liberty. Whether we remain a virtuous people able to bear the price of good government is the question if our age. I can't say I'm optimistic.
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews