A Brilliant Solution: Inventing the American Constitution

by Carol Berkin

We know--and love--the story of the American Revolution, from the Declaration of Independence to Cornwallis's defeat. But our first government was a disaster and the country was in a terrible crisis. So when a group of men traveled to Philadelphia in the summer of 1787 to save a nation in danger of collapse, they had no great expectations for the meeting that would make history. But all the ideas, arguments, and compromises led to a great thing: a constitution and a government were born that have surpassed the founders' greatest hopes. Revisiting all the original documents and using her deep knowledge of eighteenth-century history and politics, Carol Berkin takes a fresh look at the men who framed the Constitution, the issues they faced, and the times they lived in. Berkin transports the listener into the hearts and minds of the founders, exposing their fears and their limited expectations of success.

Genres: History, Nonfiction, American History, Politics, Read For School, School, American Revolution

310 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 2002

Reviews

[Jan-Maat]

Short 210 pages once you discount the constitutions at the end of the book. Large font. Easy reading. I would say ideal for schools and students, what with the texts of the Articles of Confederations and the Constitution of the United States as well as potted biographies of all the delegates to the constitution convention at the end of the book. You can virtual taste the teacher using this book to set some compare and contrast questions. Alas reviews from the generation currently undergoing education appear largely unfavourable. And I can't say I altogether blame them.

This is a decent enough book but doesn't go into enough detail to make the clause by clause struggles between a convention full of lawyers engaging, yet is just long enough that you feel as though you've personally had to avoid nodding off in a stuffy, shuttered, upstairs hall for a whole Philadelphia summer. The convention itself, shorn of the rest of the politicking of the first years of the Republic, just doesn't come across as any more than mildly interesting in Berkin's worthy account. Its hard to muster much enthusiasm once I realised that even Alexander Hamilton and other founding fathers could not stand to sit though the whole of the convention and took themselves off for extended breaks - and they not me were the ones with a stake in the process!

A couple of points of interest. First Berkin attempts to lure in readers with the promise of relevance and illuminating recent events. She mentions the Gore vs Bush the Younger disputed presidential election and the 2001 terrorist attacks wondering what the founding fathers might have thought. The answer according to her book is not much.

One of the problems the USA had under the articles of Confederation was that US shipping and sailors in the Mediterranean were being captured and held for ransom by North African Muslim pirates, ransoms which embarrassingly the early USA could not rustle up the money to pay. The founding fathers might then have predicted that dealing with terrorists from the Islamic world would be an ongoing problem even if they would have suspected the machinations of the Bey of Algiers.

As it turns out one of the fears of the delegates at the constitutional convention was that there would be perpetually disputed elections, although admittedly not on account of hanging chads, but rather because only George Washington had the thirteen colonies wide reputation of George Washington, leading them to imagine every state backing a separate candidate and deadlocked elections.

In the context of contemporary American politics Berkin is quite clear that the constitution did not come about because the founding fathers were of one mind. Instead the constitution was the result of constant arguing among delegates who although largely nationalists (as opposed to states-rights types who stayed away) had no consistent vision of what kind of nation or institution they wanted. The eventual document was a compromise among partisans, largely foisted on the country as a whole through some sharp manoeuvring, in other words a typical political process.

The constitutional convention is a knot in the history of the USA, yet it seems to me that some of the threads running in and then out of that knot are the more interesting stories, such as George Washington's appalling credit rating or how Madison and Hamilton fell out.

[Yasmin]

A Better Solution: don't read this book

[JS · Rating 3 out of 5]

This was a milquetoast effort at capturing a brief snapshot of the crafting of the constitution. It was totally fine, but probably too broad and shallow for a book with this subject matter. And it’s also very much showing it’s age at this point. Going to make another attempt at a different book on the constitution

[Enoch · Rating 4 out of 5]

I enjoyed reading this book since it provided insights into how the US legislative body was envisioned and implemented. It highlighted our legislative body's machination into how it should operate. It involves debates, influencing others, negotiations, and finally, a compromise.

Unlike other European countries during that time, which were defined by distinct languages, religions (e.g., Catholicism vs. Protestantism), cultural nuances, and thousands of years of history, citizens of the 13 colonies, now states, had the common English language, a disillusionment from the English monarchy and the lack of history as a people, The 13 colonies needed to unite to protect themselves from the European colonial powers, and the native Americans, and rely on each to exist.

I was reminded by Diamond's book Gun, Germs and Steel which highlighted the evolution of human society based on the layout of the land. Unlike Africa, Asia and Europe, which tend to be horizontally laid out, the Americans were vertically laid out. This promoted vast geographic variations when folks went from North to South or South to North. Alexander Hamilton and the Northerns favored a trade-based economy, while Thomas Jefferson, James Madison and other Southerners favored an agriculturally focused economy that promoted and embraced slavery. These fundamental ways of Southern vs. Northern approaches still exist in our post-Civil War politics today and are manifested in liberal vs. conservative politics, state rights vs. federal rights, etc. Even though slavery is abolished, the problems plaguing the founding fathers still plague us, and we should use the lessons learned that Berkin captured to navigate our future.

If you are a history fan and want to see patterns in how our politics operate, I highly recommend this book. For anyone associated with the US government (e.g., US government contractor, US civil servant, or others), it is important to understand how the US Constitution works and what it took for the founding fathers to agree and get it ratified successfully.

[Naurin · Rating 1 out of 5]

This book, “A Brilliant Solution” by Carol Berkin was by far the most horrible book I have read in my entire life! I hated reading this book. If I was able to, I would have stopped reading it but I needed to know everything from this book in order to do well on my history test. However, not a single thing from this book has enhanced my knowledge. The chapters were extremely lengthy and super boring. Additionally, the text was hard to comprehend. I would easily lose my attention and forget what I am reading about. I would fall asleep after reading about three pages. I think this book was worse than the passages from the SAT exams. I do not recommend this book to any one unless they are into history and would like to waste their time reading this. However, the only thing that I have learned is about class and equality. How each class and different people had presented their opinions on the constitution. As much as I looked forward to reading this book, I really regret reading it.

[Amanda · Rating 2 out of 5]

Going up in a airplane with a sinus affection would be more enjoyable then having to read this book and do the assignment again.






Not a the most horrible book but my teacher made me hate it. Sorry Ms. Carol Berkin

[Alexandra · Rating 5 out of 5]

A riveting narrative account of the motivations, endeavors, and results of the Constitutional Convention.

[Sarah · Rating 5 out of 5]

A remarkable, day-to-day re-enactment of the Constitutional Convention.

[Craig · Rating 3 out of 5]

Ironically, I finished reading this on the day of Trump's inaugural. I hope he's at least read the Cliffs Notes version of the Constitution, but I doubt it.

[Kendra G. ツ ~There is some good in this world, and it's worth fighting for~ · Rating 2 out of 5]

Honestly, I only got to page 96, to the fifth chapter, 30% finished. This is because I am not a history lover. Reading the first four chapters was required for school, and I was supposed to debate the statement, "Our present federal government is a name, a shadow" by Henry Knox in 1,200 words. Needless to say, it was hard to "debate" one statement after I got a little over 400 words. But if anyone wants to read it, here it is in the spoiler below.

I am 14.

In this essay I will attempt to debate the statement, “Our present federal government is a name, a shadow” by Henry Knox. So, I decided to start by breaking this quote down. Federal means having a system of government in which multiple states are a union but are still independent in internal matters. This is what the government was when Henry Knox said this statement in 1786, and it still is. He states that the government is “a name, a shadow,” which means, in his eyes, that at 1786 the government had only its title to represent it. A shadow of what it could potentially and should potentially become. And let me be honest: I agree with him. In that time, the federal government was not what it could be, not what it should be, and not what it would become.

Some, most likely they who crave power, would disagree with this statement. After all, the way I see it, the less organized it is and the harder it is for the lower ranked people to figure things out, the more power the people at the top can have in the confusion. This is not right, because a government should have organization and proper contemplation, and it should not be a disorganized mess. I can prove this is not a good choice to make out of the events that followed: People were out doing whatever they pleased, such as the states having too much inner power and becoming rather corrupt, as said here in A Brilliant Solution: Inventing the American Constitution by Carol Berkin, “Relationships among the states were no better. In the aftermath of the Revolution, real political power resided in these state governments. Animated by a heartfelt ill will and rivalry, state legislators missed no opportunity to exploit the weaknesses of their neighbors…States with natural advantages made every effort to abuse those without them. Virginia and South Carolina cheerfully squeezed what they could out of hapless North Carolina. Meanwhile, New York and Pennsylvania, both blessed with major ports, imposed steep duties on a goods destined for neighboring states.” This is also reflected in A Midwife’s Tale on PBS, “Although the states had united politically under the Articles of Confederation in 1777, they did not yet exist as a united nation. Each state retained individual sovereignty and operated under its own constitution. Congress struggled to hold the states together, and interests often clashed.”

Before the American Constitution was founded, the government was this disorderly jumble that was trying (somewhat) to be “The Great United States.” But they weren’t “The Great United States,” hence Henry Knox’s words about it being only a name…a shadow of what it could become. There was hardly a governing figure. The states had their own little chaotic governments. Everyone was very elated to get away from Great Britain and to start a new country; yet the details of the United States of America’s government hadn’t been worked out.

I would assume some people did not want to be organized and have an actual, efficient government, because they enjoyed the free rein they had, and did not want to lose it (for example, criminals). This was easily proven a bad idea to entertain as it quickly soaked in that they no longer had the protection of the British government when it would have been helpful. No army to ride with while exploring, no protective escort through the seas. No privileges that came with being part of Great Britain at all, as said here in A Brilliant Solutionz: “True, the restrictions and injustices suffered in the colonial era had been eliminated but so, too, had many of the advantages of membership in the British empire. An independent American merchant marine was free to carry American products, but they no longer enjoyed the protection of the British navy on the high seas. New England fishermen had won the right to fish off Newfoundland, but they had lost their guaranteed British Caribbean markets for their catch. Chesapeake tobacco planters had renounced their debts to Scottish merchants and English consignment agents when they declared independence, but in the process they had lost their most reliable sources of credit.”
It’s possible that many did not think establishing a government would even work— that no one would pay attention. Even some of the delegates did not show up for meetings because they thought it wasn’t important enough or that it was pointless. But this can be argued that many people would listen, because there are other opinions and together the people would find the way to develop an organized and efficient government.

I would also assume some would be worried that the United States’ government, when established, would turn out like the controlling British they just left. Well, it was already happening: The individual states were putting up restrictions, trade barriers, and border payments at every corner, just like their previous country, hypocritically enough. They actually liked squeezing the life out of their fellow states. When Henry Knox said, “Our present federal government is a name, a shadow” perhaps he meant not only was it just a title of something the country aspired to be, but also the name “United States” hid the fact that it was turning into something more like the British. According to Teen Ink, “After breaking away from what appeared to be a corrupt government in England, American leaders formed the concepts of their ideal society. Although to them it seemed that these ideas would help them break away from the British style of government, in reality they reverted to one that was much more centralized, much like that of England's.” In support of this view, A Brilliant Solution states that “They rushed to enact tariffs and trade barriers, replacing the hated British restrictions with restrictions of their own. New Jersey had gone so far as to create its own customs service, an ironic tribute to the regulatory system of its former British rulers.”

In conclusion, I just do not understand why people would truly argue against Henry Knox’s words. I mean, yes, the people going against a new government have their own reasons, but if you really think about it, they’re all petty or greedy. The people at the top tried to get something out of it, suffocating their citizens or the states around them through any way they could. Then there were the ones who just wanted to do whatever they wanted with no repercussions. There were people who thought creating an efficient government was pointless or unimportant. And there were those who reenacted the British restrictions all the while worrying, hypocritically, about a new government turning out like Great Britain’s. All of these reasons were easily shot down by simple, logical arguments, and again I must ask why anyone would say a new government would be a bad idea at this time. After all, in the Once-ler from The Lorax’s words, it’s not about what it is, it’s about what it can become.

[Sofia · Rating 2 out of 5]

I had to read this book for school! I felt like I retained no information and as one of my classmates put it “it felt like reading a fan fiction of the founding fathers.” I wanted to scrape my eyeballs out every time the chapters were over 30 pages because who makes chapters over 10 pages ? Carol Berkin, apparently. I don’t recommend this book unless you want to read about Alexander Hamilton’s excellence and how he was the future or if you want to know how George Washington was everyone’s guy crush. Overall, I give this two stars 1)because I’m nice and 2) because it had some funny quotes that made me laugh

Ms. Berkin, I know you worked hard on this book so no hate to you ! Your dedication to this work was great , just not the book for me.

[Ayah · Rating 1 out of 5]

had to read it for homework, sucked out my soul :(

[Luneflora ˚ʚ♡ɞ˚ · Rating 4 out of 5]

gouverneur morris my goat

a brilliant solution indeed

[Lily Mancini · Rating 1 out of 5]

Boring. I hate AP Gov.

[Rosemarie · Rating 1 out of 5]

At first glance to Carol Berkin’s a Brilliant Solution: Inventing the American Constitution I felt uneasy. I predicted it was going to be reading a short “textbook”. To be honest I was correct. Unfortunately I am not an American History fan so this might be the reason behind my lethargic attitude while reading this book. Berkin did a lovely job detailing the foundation of how the American Constitution was written and constructed. I found it funny how she began her book with stating how she felt about the founding fathers, men who did not know or have faith in what they were doing. I think her main points while writing this book was to evidently prove that history repeats itself and the past is the cause to the future. To be honest I couldn’t concentrate while reading this book at all. I’m not saying it was the worst book I have ever read in my life, but nor am I saying i was fond of it. As i got through the lengthy chapters I would consistently forget what I read in the previous pages. I hates this feeling of being lost and not grasping to what I was currently reading. I am glad this book was assigned by my American History teacher because it was much of a challenge for me, if it wasn’t for this I would have never even picked it up.

However I liked Berkin’s method in having sub-titles in the beginning of each chapter. These sub-titles correlated to the main idea of the chapter. Such as “How far do you intend to go?” (chapter 4). As well it includes how the Articles of Confederation was a downfall to the nation and what not. The nation created back then would have a great impact to our current one. I also do not like to read books that don’t get straight to the point and have all this extra “fluff”. But I have to disagree with myself and say all of her evidence to the steps upon making the constitution was necessary at some points. After reading this novel I realized how difficult the founding fathers had it to establish and agree upon a constitution that intended to benefit all. I would recommend this book to those U.S history fans out there!!!

[Arelis · Rating 1 out of 5]

In A Brilliant Solution: Inventing the American Constitution, Carol Berkin recalls the period following the end of the Revolutionary War. It was a time where they had a dysfunctional government called the Articles of Confederation. The states had too much power that the country could not function properly. They had a large amount of debt and the 13 states conducted themselves as independent political units. Berkin shows the desperation and passion of the men who met in Philadelphia in the summer of 1787 to design America's new constitution. This convention consisted of men of wealth, landowners, slaveholders, and lawyers. They held meetings in private desperately trying to find solutions in amending the confederation.
Although the universally revered George Washington and Ben Franklin were both active in the convention, they were less assertive than others such as James Madison and Alexander Hamilton. The debates surged this way and that, sometimes having to go back in forth with a problem that they usually conformed to anything just so that they can end it. With her engaging narrative the includes the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution as initially approved, as well as thumbnail biographies of all the representatives to the convention.
A Brilliant Solution is titled this way to describe the government that still exists today. As one that has a balance of power and prevents rights from being violated. They had goals of equality and unity in Americas. Although it was sort of interesting I started to get bored around the same time that the delgates did. They kept going back to the same thing and repeating the same ideals. After a while it makes you want to commit suicide. I only read this book because it was my homework.
From this novel I have learned the way the constitution was made and the many troubles that the people who were in this convention faced when deciding what to do.
I give it one star and I only recommend it to people who really love history. Maybe if it was not so repetitive I would like it.

[Eileen · Rating 5 out of 5]

One of the best books I've read in US history. Berkin has done a comprehensive study of the personalities and life circumstances of all the fellows at the Constitutional Convention in Philly in 1788. She describes the setting: an unusually hot and muggy summer, an infestation of black flies that required keeping the windows boarded up (this is pre-window screens), and light only from candles. Men coming and going from the event as they all had lives going on at home or in business. The hotels and pubs they stayed at and frequented, where conversations about Article 25 and the process of amending the Constitution went on into the wee hours.

I found I like some of these folks and wish I could meet them in person (Governour Morris!). I took a dislike to some (George Washington) despite appreciating their contributions. I suspended my knowledge of the outcome to suffer through some of the debates that Madison recorded (bless his short little heart). I learned so much from this one book. I have studied colonial US history in multiple ways - I know all about staples theory and the coming of market capitalism, relationships with nations across the Atlantic, and the differences among various European colonial powers in general. This is different. It EMBODIES all those things, and more, in the lives of these guys. It is worth reading no matter how much you know about what happened. This is about who made it happen, and how. You end up appreciating the slow, painful processes of diplomacy as these representatives from various colonies try to find ways to come to agreement (such as the infamous compromise on how enslaved people should be counted for purposes of congressional representation).

I ended up giving this book as a gift to numerous people, who reportedly couldn't put it down to turn off the light at night. Now that is an appreciated gift!

[Finnoula · Rating 3 out of 5]

I didn't read the whole book, only up to chapter 7 because that is what we were assigned for Ms. Moore's class. I thought it was interesting of the whole concept of going back to history to try to solve present problems. Berkin, in being a historian/professor, knows that its her job to ask these questions, like "What would the Founding Fathers think about this?" When you think about it, the founding fathers would be appalled at the actions taken in the November 2000 election, how a corruption in the system accidentally made the loser, George W. Bush win the election. Just because of one little state, Florida! I liked the way Berkin named each chapter with a clever name and a quote. It was brilliant. At times the reading became a little dry, but that is how history works most of the time. If I had to choose a favorite chapter it would be "A Gathering of Demigods:Men of 'Ability, Weight, and Experience'" because it gave us a better understanding of the delegates and who they were. I give this three stars because I felt it was okay but not the best.

[Katie Bearor · Rating 2 out of 5]

A 50-page book that was painfully and pointlessly expanded into a 300-page book full of useless descriptions and erroneous statements.

A must-read, though, if you truly want to waste hours of your time reading grammatically incorrect, verbose sentences telling you about the color of Roger Sherman's suit, which was apparently poorly fitted and a dull shade of black.

Two stars rather than one simply because there is some decent information buried amidst all the verbiage.

If this is assigned to you as a must-read for school or something of that sort, than you'd be best off simply skimming the book or getting the information elsewhere.

[Noelle Prignano · Rating 3 out of 5]

The book is very good, I just find the topic boring.

[David · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is the best book I've read on the creation of the American Constitution. While Berkin's focus is the convention itself, she sets the scene with an exploration of Shays' Rebellion and the union the Articles of Confederation made. The most valuable part of the book, however, is her insightful analysis of the records of the Constitutional Convention. She sorts through the notes of Madison, Robert Yates, James Wilson and others to uncover the arguments the framers made. This analysis serves a larger, often implicit thesis - the Constitution did not come as a fully formed project, but reflected negotiation, compromise, backtracking, personal rivalry and interest, inertia and caprice. Sometimes this process led to structures that were, and are, durable and successful. Other times, it led to systems that either served their moment well but have aged poorly, or ones that never were an appropriate fit, and needed (and, sometimes, still need) to be amended or corrected.

While that thesis certainly isn't novel, by situating it within the debates of the convention, Berkin is able to make it much more persuasive. She also illuminates the ways that changing one element of the Constitution affected other elements - how would selection of the President by Congress, for example, change the question of term length and limits? By the time I was done, I was glad for the inclusion of the Articles of Confederation and Constitution as appendices, so I could read through them more carefully and knowledgeably.

This was a very readable book, and one I'd highly recommend.

[Donnie · Rating 4 out of 5]

This was definitely worth reading. There is so much talk now about constitutional crises and the constitution and the intentions of the framers are frequently commented on. I wanted to go back and get a refresher on the people and process and final product of the constitutional convention that started our nation. This may not be the most complete or thorough. There have been numerous books written on this topic. But it was a good start. It wasn't too lengthy. It covered all the topics I wanted and reminded me of where the country was when the constitution was written. We had essentially no government. We also had no easy way for people to communicate and no way for politicians, if there even were any, to run for national office since it would be almost impossible for them to campaign across the country when the roads were so bad and dangerous and the weather often made them impassable to carriages. George Washington was the best possible choice for president for a lot of reasons but a simple one was that he was about the only person in the country that everyone had heard of. The book also has nice sections at the end that list everyone who was there with very brief bio and contains the constitution at that time. I think everyone should read something to get us more familiar with this landmark document. It plays a critical role today just like it did when it was first created.

[Michael Loveless · Rating 4 out of 5]

Carol Berkin's book, A Brilliant Solution, is a wonderful overview of the writing of the Constitution. Berkin is clearly writing for a popular audience, and her account should give the average reader newfound respect for the collective wisdom and endurance of the Constitution's framers. Clearly the Constitution is the result of a group of men who had very different ideas concerning good government. The final document was not handed down from the mountaintop by the hand of God, as many American's symbolically believe. The Constitution was written in a painstaking process, over the course of three months, by men who shared little more than a desire for a stronger national government. Almost every detail was debated repeatedly and vigorously. Surely none of the framers left Philadelphia completely satisfied, but most believed they had created something that could serve the country better than the Articles of Confederation. Berkin humanizes the story so that readers will likely be both more and less impressed with the resulting document. This book is a must read for anyone who would like to know how and why the Constitution's framers created the government in its original form.

[Michael · Rating 4 out of 5]

In her talk on Book TV, Berkin described what interested her in the topic. Motivated by a strong sense of missed opportunity to debate the necessity of the Electoral College after the contested 2000 election, she wanted to explain to the more general public the pragmatic way in which the members of the Constitutional Convention went about finding a Brilliant Solution to the challenges posed by the task of institutionalizing representative government. Noting that they ':Here "men of their times," she comments that they were not as concerned with the role of the executive as we are today. Living long before the "imperial presidency" of the 20th Century, they focused primarily upon the legislative power. They were also, as her answers to the questions posed by the MA Historical Society audience reveal, not all that concerned about Slavery (3/5th compromise was really carried over from the Continental Congress). The decision to support a bicameral legislature with proportional representation in only one of the two houses was one of the most brilliant parts of the brilliant solution.

[Amanda Holiday · Rating 4 out of 5]

The Confederation Constitution forgot a few things, among which was a source of income for the national government to pay debts from the War for Independence. "A Brilliant Solution: Inventing the American Constitution", by Carol Berkin, gives us a peek behind the closed and curtained windows to the arguments and agreements at the Philadelphia Convention that devised not corrections but a new Constitution entirely and the battle to get it ratified.

Admittedly boring to those who don't like history, it draws the sleeping historian in many out and becomes riveting to them. How could it not? A Republic has a hard birth, fraught with dangers of failure before and after the idea becomes We, the People forming a government of, by, and for the people. It faces many challenges in its life, and among these periods of conflict and peace to shine among the governments of the earth.

[Emma Kinchen · Rating 1 out of 5]

truly the worst book i have ever read. i want nothing more than to tear it apart into a million pieces with my bare hands and set it on fire. all of the info in this book can be easily found by googling and it’ll probably be easier to understand too. so much useless information stretched out to reach some 300 page limit. why do i need to know what hairstyle james madison had at the convention?? you would probably learn more and be more entertained by simply reading an american history textbook cover to cover because that’s basically what this was. it got to a point where if i had to read the words “confederation” one more time i was very tempted to simply bang my head over with the book. anyone who says this is even a decent book is just lying straight to your face.

[James Usovicz · Rating 5 out of 5]

Another quick read. Made me realize much more about the individual debates at hand in the Constitution, and the difficulty of the convention and adoption process. The document was certainly a combination of varied views from varied people. Interesting to learn about George Mason and Randolph, and a lot of the people who opposed adoption. Jefferson's view being mixed was interesting. Selection of the executive was intriguing, as was the skepticism by which the founders approached power, wanting to avoid corruption of the legislature, courts, and the Presidency as much as possible. Context is everything.

[Lynn · Rating 5 out of 5]

Excellent book with great insight into the personalities and issues that shaped the creation of the Constitution. The book clearly lays out the conflicts among the delegates none of whom were certain as to what the purpose of the convention was: were they just revising the Articles of Confederation or were they going to create a new government. It is an interesting and smooth read, not at all dry or dull. The reader will have a greater understanding of the conundrums facing the delegates, the compromises that were made and the fact that the delegates didn't expect the Constitution to last forever. Kudos to Carol Berkin.

[Katie · Rating 3 out of 5]

Not the worst thing I've had to read for school. At times it may sound like a textbook, but it's also told as if it were a story. Sometimes it's boring, but most books I've had to read for school are. And at the very least, this shocked me, I've actually used some of the info from this book when talking about modern politics. And if a book is relevant to everyday lives, then I consider it a "good" book. It's worth reading if you like American history and have the time. Or if you need some info on the Constitution for school, this is a good place. The writing is very clear.

[Austin Kinghorn · Rating 4 out of 5]

Many interesting facts in this book, including that the Articles of Confederation recognized the sovereignty of the states absolutely rather than the continental government, pretty much invalidating the subsequent arguments of Jackson and Lincoln for the Civil War against Southern Secession. Also how much secrecy, councils, committees, and general parliamentary order played a part in the debates. James Madison comes out looking great and Alexander Hamilton whom I respected as one of my favorite founding fathers comes out rather lackluster. A surprisingly good book.