Chapter 7

[Alexander]

Discuss here! This is the final discussion post for this book, so tell me what you like/didn't like, what you wish he could have expanded on, what he could have excluded, etc.

How many stars did you give it & why?

[Jane]

Well, now I want to know why you don't care for Ellis. This is the first of his books I have read, and I know he has written many. I thought it was an interesting subject/device (sort of reminded me of "Madison's Gift"), and I appreciated that it was relatively short. There was a lot packed into 220 pages.

It was a bit repetitive, however. As for what could have been expanded on, I couldn't believe he only spent ~2 pages on the Federalist Papers.

I rated it 4 stars, though I'd rather have picked 3.5 stars, somewhere between "liked it" and "really liked it."

[Nancy]

This was my first time reading Ellis. Some of the chapters were more interesting, explaining some of the thinking behind their actions, others were lacking depth and read more like a textbook. For example, I felt like this was the case with Madison, I had a much better understanding of how Madison made the argument for the Constitution and Bill of Rights; however, at the same time, he only dedicated one sentence to Madison's flip flop in his position. This seemed very abrupt to me. Other sections, such as the description of Jay's contributions read more like a textbook to me.
All in all. It was an interesting read if not a little dry and uneven at times. I give it 3.5 of 5 stars.

[Alexander]

Jane, I am probably biased from the negative reports I heard about him, but, although I didn't mind his writing style, I also didn't think he gave enough credit to others. It really seemed like a book about James Madison, but there are so many who worked on the constitution that, in my opinion, were hardly mentioned, like G. Morris. And he hardly did John Jay justice which is strange since he is one of the "quartet." I will say that I'm glad he did not just start with the CC of 1787 and instead expanded the time frame.

And I can't really say that he proved his thesis, that America became a nation because of the Constitution. Now that we've finished the book, what do you all think? Was America a nation at 1776 or did it take until 1787 for us to truly bear that title?

Also, do you think he makes his "quartet" to be constitutional saviors that came in to save the day? I think he does and in doing so, glosses over or outright ignores an important political process.

[Nancy]

I know I was the only one who felt this way but I still think we were a nation from 76, perhaps not the nation we are today, but still a nation. I understand that we were still identifying as states, and it wasn't until the Constitution that we became a more cohesive union with a political framework, but we couldn't have gotten to the Constitutional Convention without the experiences gained during the years leading up to it. From my perspective, we became a nation when we established ourselves as a union separate from Britian. So, in that sense, Ellis was not able to convince me that the Constitutional Convention was a 2nd revolution. I see it as another step in our progression to becoming this current nation, just as I see the amendments passed since then as additional notches along the way.

[Jane]

I wonder if it could be said that the US was in 1776 an embryonic nation, with great potential yet to be realized. It was set apart from almost every other in the world with its stated rejection of a monarchy, and no other colony had ever successfully thrown off its sovereign.

I also wished to know more about John Jay, and G. Morris. The two of them are usually left out of the boilerplate stories of the revolution/Constitution.