Everand Logo

Welcome to Everand!

  • Discover millions of ebooks, audiobooks, and so much more with a free trial

    Only $11.99/month after trial. Cancel anytime.

    Ratification: The People Debate the Constitution, 1787-1788
    Ratification: The People Debate the Constitution, 1787-1788
    Ratification: The People Debate the Constitution, 1787-1788
    Audiobook23 hours

    Ratification: The People Debate the Constitution, 1787-1788

    Written by Pauline Maier

    Narrated by Johnny Heller

    4/5

    ()

    Switch to ebook

    About this audiobook

    When the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia adjourned late in the summer of 1787, the delegates returned to their states to report on the new Constitution, which had to be ratified by specially elected conventions in at least nine states. Pauline Maier recounts the dramatic events of the ensuing debate in homes, taverns, and convention halls, drawing generously on the speeches and letters of founding fathers, both familiar and forgotten, on all sides.

    This is the first narrative history in decades of the ratification debate, with all its significance, and it draws on new scholarship about the ratification process. In Maier's skillful hands, this fascinating yet often overlooked episode in the nation's history comes to life as never before.
    LanguageEnglish
    PublisherTantor Media, Inc
    Release dateNov 2, 2010
    ISBN9781400189656

    Related to Ratification

    Related audiobooks

    United States History For You

    View More
    View More

    Related podcast episodes

    Related articles

    • Article

      1776, not 1619

      Oct 29, 2019

      1776, not 1619
      5 min read

    • Article

      Will the Kavanaugh Saga Leave Bruises That Heal Or Permanent Scars?

      Oct 5, 2018

      The fight over the nomination rises from the emotional cauldron that boiled through the 2016 campaign and has simmered ever since.

      6 min read

    • Article

      A Master’s Lessons

      Nov 26, 2019

      A Master’s Lessons
      3 min read

    • Article

      Unity Can Be Worse Than Partisanship

      Jul 26, 2019

      I want to put in a good word for partisanship. This might sound strange to some readers. I've written a lot about our problem with tribalism, including hyper-partisanship and political polarization. It was a major theme of my cheerily titled book "Su

      3 min read

    • Article

      Explosive Election

      Nov 17, 2020

      Explosive Election
      12 min read

    • Article

      How America Managed To Down The Law

      Apr 14, 2022

      The US Constitution is one of the most revered of all political documents – the backbone of the world’s most powerful nation. Yet it endured the most troubled of births. That birth occurred in the immediate aftermath of the American Revolutionary War

      1 min read

    • Article

      How A Supreme Court Justice In The 1800s Made History Through Dissent

      Jun 7, 2021

      A new book explores the life of Justice John Marshall Harlan, who wrote the dissenting opinion in the Supreme Court case that upheld the principle of racial segregation.

      3 min read

    • Article

      Robert C. Koehler: White Supremacists Want ‘Their’ Country Back

      Jul 14, 2022

      Is an insurrection percolating in the MAGA universe? A civil war? One thing I notice as I read the growing warnings that this is the case is the assumption that suddenly the USA has become a divided nation, a splintered democracy, when, in point of f

      3 min read

    • Article

      Reviews

      Jul 21, 2020

      Reviews
      6 min read

    • Article

      A National Test

      Nov 8, 2019

      A National Test
      6 min read

    • Article

      Is America A Democracy Or A Republic? Yes It Is

      Sep 10, 2022

      Election denialism has become not only a thing but a movement. And if critics call this an attack on democracy, some election deniers respond by saying the U.S. is not a democracy, it is a republic.

      5 min read

    Related categories

    Reviews for Ratification

    4/5

    47 ratings4 reviews

    What did you think?

    Tap to rate

    Review must be at least 10 words

    • 4/5
      I used an Audible.com free trial to get this book in July of 2015. I listened to it off and on, only dedicating additional time at the end of the year so that I could close out my reading list. It was a marathon listen, at 23 hours 9 minutes. The narrator didn't do much to make listening thrilling, so you could easily loose focus (as I would) and suddenly wonder, "What was he saying?" meaning I would then back up three-five minutes and listen again. As for the book itself, Ratification is a long book, but it should be as it covers how each state ratified the US Constitution. This process was long and included much heated debate and controversy. The key issue: how to prevent a central government from assuming too much power. The debaters knew the oppression of central government from personal experience, from history, and readings of great philosophers. They desired a "more perfect union" but debated long and hard over whether the US Constitution as proposed provided sufficient barriers against too much power in a central government. This concern was the reason for what we now know as the Bill of Rights, and the reason why at least two states delayed in their ratification efforts. The book also gives a short update on several key figures in the ratification process, though it takes no stance on the right-ness or wrong-ness of the process nor on how far we have moved away from the original intent of the document and the ratifying voters positions. Ratification is an excellent reference book, one each American would benefit from reading. However, I would not recommend the audiobook. It's just too easy to loose your place of reference.
    • 5/5
      In modern times, the Constitution of the United States has been held by its citizens in such esteem (when they pay attention to it at all) as to put it in the category of a “sacred text.” But that was by no means the case in 1787 and 1788, when the newly-drafted Constitution was sent to the states for ratification.The fledgling nation was in terrible shape in 1787. The Articles of Confederation, under which the young republic had operated, were inadequate. Most pressing was the issue of revenue. The Federal government could not raise revenue directly, but only through requisitions on the state governments. Some paid at least part of their obligations, but most did not, thanks to war-time debts and wide-spread disruption in the economy resulting from the War for Independence. As a result, the United States was in danger of defaulting on its loans (what else is new) and had no money to pay its bills.But revenue was not the only issue. The country had no army, and was totally dependent on poorly trained and equipped state militias. There was real danger from hostile Native Americans and threats from the British and Spanish. The legislative process was cumbersome.As a result, a convention was called to meet in Philadelphia in order to amend the Articles of Confederation. But it soon became clear that it was better to write a whole new Constitution, since there was no real hope of salvaging the Articles into a workable document.While the arguments for ratification were compelling, there were equally strong, valid arguments against adopting the Constitution as written, which was what was being asked. While different states raised varying numbers of objections, the ones on which all opponents agreed were direct taxation, representation, and a lack of specific guarantees or a Bill of Rights such as existed in many (but not all) state constitutions. Maier tells the story, state by state, of the struggle for ratification and it is fascinating. No two state conventions and ratification processes were like. They ran the gamut from Pennsylvania, were ratification was ramrodded through the state convention and there was violence against opponents in Philadelphia after ratification, to Rhode Island and North Carolina who abstained from ratification and joined the new Union later. But in all 13 states, the debate was on real issues, with real concerns and with true patriots on both sides. Clearly much has been lost in the intervening years.While absorbing, Ratification is not a fast read. But it is definitely a worthwhile one. Highly recommended.
    • 5/5
      This is a fascinating book about the ratification of the Constitution. The author, Pauline Maier, states in her preface that this is one of the few books whose sole topic is the ratification of the Constitution in all thirteen of the original states. Given the importance of this event it seems unusual that it took so long for someone to write this book. A very important tool that made it possible is The Documentary History of the Ratification of the Constitution. This project which is being done by the Wisconsin Historical Society began in 1976. At the time this book was written twenty-one volumes had been completed. It is anticipated that the completed work will be thirty-one volumes. The author states that without this collection it is doubtful she could have written this book.The author tells the story with a sense of real life immediacy which imparts to the reader the excitement and suspense of living through the events as they happened. Ms. Maier attributes this perspective to the use of an idea she first heard in a lecture by Barbara Tuchman when she was in graduate school. A writer can build suspense in telling a story even if the reader knows how the story turned out so long as the writer never mentions the outcome until it happens at the proper point in the story. The author's use of this idea with a wealth of carefully selected primary sources makes the historical narrative come alive for the reader just as a great artist is able to convey an experience with a two dimensional representation. The author's skill maintains this level of involvement for the reader throughout the book.The author begins with the story of George Washington's decision to attend the Constitutional Convention. Washington is hesitant to attend the convention because he has told the Society of Cincinnati that he will not attend their meeting in Philadelphia the first Monday of May 1787. The membership of the Society is divided on the question of hereditary membership and while Washington is opposed to this idea he does not want to confront many of his old friends who support it. His decision to attend the convention provides an encapsulated debate over the need for a new form of government for the country. After the Constitution is signed the author returns to Washington as he follows the beginning of the ratification process.Prior to the state conventions a variety of newspaper articles and pamphlets begin the "war of written words" which combine to give us many of the ideas discussed during the time of ratification. The author points out that the writings were done largely on a local level. Today we may think that the Federalist papers were read across the country. Actually several states had ratified the Constitution before they began publication. They were primarily read in New York City and did not gain a wider audience until they were published in book form. The men who wrote for and against the Constitution showed a good understanding of the issues involved and command of a wide variety of sources dealing with those issues. Some of the questions they found important such as the presence of a standing army during peacetime are not as important to us today. One other issue they discussed, the "necessary and proper" clause in the powers of Congress, is debated in cases before the present Supreme Court. I doubt the present Congress could carry on a debate about the Constitution at the level shown during the period covered in this book.Several of the states determined their decision on the Constitution on strictly local political issues. Delaware was the first state to vote for ratification and did so after only four days of debate. They wanted to end the taxes imposed by Pennsylvania on goods they imported from Philadelphia. The last state to ratify the Constitution was Rhode Island on May 29, 1790. By that time the national government had passed a bill prohibiting the twelve other states from trading with Rhode Island. Rhode Island was opposed to slavery and the slave trade and wished to continue to print paper money which is prohibited to the states by the Constitution.I found the debates in the Virginia and New York conventions very interesting. Virginia elected a group of delegates that were evenly split on the question of ratification. James Madison and Patrick Henry were key figures in the debates. The author does not provide a flattering portrayal of Patrick Henry. He was a great orator but not well educated or knowledgeable about the law. She had several pithy quotes from Thomas Jefferson who loathed Henry. Madison was the great mind. The force of his knowledge and reasoning was irresistible to many.When Virginia and New York began their conventions only eight states had ratified the Constitution. Each state felt theirs' could be the deciding vote. New York had elected a group of delegates strongly opposed to the Constitution. George Clinton, the Governor of New York, felt the Constitution created a consolidated government which he strongly opposed. Alexander Hamilton was strongly in favor and was a brilliant and energetic debater.The suspense of the vote in the Virginia convention was palpable. Those opposed had argued for a strong list of amendments to be adopted before the Constitution could be ratified. Delegates from what is now Kentucky were strongly opposed to the Constitution. Ratification was passed by ten votes and numerous amendments were recommended to be included. Shortly after their vote the Virginia convention learned that New Hampshire had been the ninth state to vote for ratification. The Virginia vote had not been as critical as the members thought at the time. The New York convention learned of the votes of the New Hampshire and Virginia conventions before their final votes. They had a choice to either ratify or stay out of the union. Many of the New York delegates still opposed the Constitution. Led by Melancton Smith a group of Anti-Federalists compromised and voted for ratification with a list of recommended and not conditional amendments.The author covered all these events and more in great detail. She introduced me to many previously unknown delegates to the conventions who played critical roles. A short chapter at the end tells how the lives of many of the delegates ended. James Wilson, a prominent delegate in the Pennsylvania convention, died broken and alone at the age of fifty-five. He had served two stints in debtor's prison while an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court.The Constitutional Convention was empowered by Congress to amend the Articles of Confederation. Instead they created a completely new government which was eventually accepted by the country. After the Constitution was ratified those who had opposed it felt bound to support it. The author does a brilliant job of describing the process that led to this result but she does not address what forces led to the acceptance of the drastic changes proposed in the Constitution. Was it simply a combination of the prestige of the convention delegates, led by George Washington, and the obvious need for improvements in the government? Or was it the collective genius of the American people aided by Providence?
    • 5/5
      Maier combines mastery of the subject with a novelists ability to plot a multi-threaded narrative, describing a mostly overlooked and inaccessible part of U.S. history. I was very glad to meet some of the lesser players in the Founding, names I hadn't heard before but am going to put right up there on the pedestal with Washington, Madison, Franklin, Jefferson, et. al. Granted, the subject matter isn't for everyone, but this book is superb.