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.

    The Summer of 1787: The Men Who Invented the Constitution
    The Summer of 1787: The Men Who Invented the Constitution
    The Summer of 1787: The Men Who Invented the Constitution
    Ebook489 pages8 hours

    The Summer of 1787: The Men Who Invented the Constitution

    By David O. Stewart

    4/5

    ()

    Switch to audiobook
    Read preview

    About this ebook

    The Summer of 1787 takes us into the sweltering room in which the founding fathers struggled for four months to produce the Constitution: the flawed but enduring document that would define the nation—then and now.

    George Washington presided, James Madison kept the notes, Benjamin Franklin offered wisdom and humor at crucial times. The Summer of 1787 traces the struggles within the Philadelphia Convention as the delegates hammered out the charter for the world’s first constitutional democracy. Relying on the words of the delegates themselves to explore the Convention’s sharp conflicts and hard bargaining, David O. Stewart lays out the passions and contradictions of the, often, painful process of writing the Constitution.

    It was a desperate balancing act. Revolutionary principles required that the people have power, but could the people be trusted? Would a stronger central government leave room for the states? Would the small states accept a Congress in which seats were allotted according to population rather than to each sovereign state? And what of slavery? The supercharged debates over America’s original sin led to the most creative and most disappointing political deals of the Convention.

    The room was crowded with colorful and passionate characters, some known—Alexander Hamilton, Gouverneur Morris, Edmund Randolph—and others largely forgotten. At different points during that sultry summer, more than half of the delegates threatened to walk out, and some actually did, but Washington’s quiet leadership and the delegates’ inspired compromises held the Convention together.

    In a country continually arguing over the document’s original intent, it is fascinating to watch these powerful characters struggle toward consensus—often reluctantly—to write a flawed but living and breathing document that could evolve with the nation.
    LanguageEnglish
    PublisherSimon & Schuster
    Release dateApr 10, 2007
    ISBN9781416554042
    Author

    David O. Stewart

    David O. Stewart is an award-winning author and the president of the Washington Independent Review of Books. He is the author of several acclaimed histories, including Madison’s Gift: Five Partnerships That Built America; The Summer of 1787: The Men Who Invented the Constitution; Impeached: The Trial of President Andrew Johnson and the Fight for Lincoln’s Legacy; and American Emperor: Aaron Burr’s Challenge to Jefferson’s America. Stewart’s first novel is The Lincoln Deception.

    Read more from David O. Stewart

    Related to The Summer of 1787

    Related ebooks

    Political Biographies For You

    View More
    View More

    Related podcast episodes

    Related articles

    Related categories

    Reviews for The Summer of 1787

    4/5

    16 ratings8 reviews

    What did you think?

    Tap to rate

    Review must be at least 10 words

    • 5/5
      A good read.
    • 4/5
      Told from David O. Stewart's point of view, the Constitution was really born out of a kerfuffle between Virginia and Maryland over access to the Potamac River. It's a unique, if dryer, point of view. Stewart also distinguishes himself by simultaneously tearing down any illusions about the founding fathers and the Convention while treating both with a wide-eyed, hushed awe and respect. Humanizing the fathers was clearly a necessary chore in Stewart's eyes, as his portrayals of the delegates are destined to leave the men as glossy, two-dimensional, formal painted portraits in the reader's eyes. Benjamin's Franklin, for example, is explained to have been "ill," but the fact that he had syphilis after whoring around France is never even hinted at. Rather, we are to envision him as an infirm, accomplished and elderly statesman, benevolently diffusing conflicts on occasion. Likewise, Washington -- who Stewart insists on referring to frequently as "The General"-- and his complete lack of participation is also commented on, belatedly, with awe. More knowledgeable historians know better, and perhaps that is why this aspect of the book left a bad taste in my mouth.At the same time, Stewart is an attorney, one who has argued before the Supreme Court no less, and his crisp, clear prose reflects what must be his skill for distillation in the interest of proving a point. The book is peppered with a sharp-edged wit that often shows in the form of a delightfully unexpected zinger at the end of a paragraph.Preventing the book becoming too dry, Stewart is oddly obsessed with what the weather was like on a given day that summer in Philadelphia. Though at first uses this information rather well to convey the atmosphere of the time, it becomes evident after a few chapters that this is the only trick up his sleeve and it wears rather thin towards the end. Stewart's obviously brilliant legal mind is also his downfall. Rather than being a book about the Constitutional Convention, the majority of book examines the Three-Fifths Compromise and the epic Small-State v. Big States battle over Congressional representation. So much so, in fact, that I feel that this book should be re-titled and is actually a bit misleading. Part of this is due to Stewart's arranging the book in chronological order. It is in fact true that most of the work on the executive branch was hashed out in committees during the last few weeks of the Convention. It is equally true the slave question, without ever really being mentioned exactly, dominated the debates due to its monstrous impact on representation.Other historians have opted for consolidation of the issues over chronology, and Stewart's book serves as a good example as to why this is a better approach.Good historical writing takes facts and shapes them into something different, though not inaccurate or unrehearsed, to look at. Stewart, instead, acts more like a modern Madison, transcribing everything clearly but with little life left in the narrative.Still, this would be a wonderful book for a reader looking to learn more about the Constitution's formation. Stewart is merciless in his disabusing of modern-day falsely held notions, even meticulously chronicling every delegate's end, even the most undignified and sordid. By underplaying Roger Sherman's role and expanding more on lesser-known delegates, such as Mason and Rutledge, Stewart shows that the Constitution, as disillusioning as it may be, was hammered out by committees and subcommittees, in deals brokered after hours in pubs and by men with ambitions that are not so lofty as we Americans want to believe. He even quotes Madison saying as much.Stewart also does a wonderful job of illustrating that (contrary to current popular belief), the Convention was held to strengthen the government and most delegates -- though not all -- found the prospect of direct influence on the government a horrifying prospect. The point that the Bill of Rights is, essentially, a rider to ensure ratification by small states left vulnerable by the Three-Fifths Compromise, is well illustrated. Finally, readers will be firmly disabused of the notion that Jefferson wrote the Constitution, since Stewart points out that -- at the last minute, really -- Alexander Hamilton, John Madison and Goveneur Morris wrote the final draft (Morris, known for his ability to express complicated ideas clearly, took the lead).Returning again and again to the question of slavery and its overall implications on representation, Stewart argues that it was one of the most detrimental decisions the founders made, and that they knew it at the time, too. The problem is, having won his argument, Stewart goes on about it.As a result, the formation of the executive, sundry Congressional powers and of course the Elector System get rather short shrift. They feel crammed into the last few chapters and unjustly glossed over.Still, Stewart's scholarship can not fairly be faulted and his idealism can be forgiven, if for no other reason than the notion of a lawyer with such obvious genuine respect for the Founders arguing before the Supreme Court is a comforting thought.If someone I knew wanted to know more about the Constitutional Convention, this is without hesitation the book I would recommend to them. If a Con Law geek like me was looking for a good read about the delegates and their debates, I would recommend my personal favorite, Joe Ellis' "Founding Brothers."Finally, I'd like to make a note on this particular edition. It is a beautiful book. There are wonderful illustrations and the font selection for chapter headings is gorgeous. The illustrations are well-placed and well-chosen. All of which helps, perhaps more than Stewart's weather notes, to set the tone exceedingly well.

      1 person found this helpful

    • 5/5
      James Madison is known to history as the "Father of the Constitution." For all his political influence and genius, which were on display throughout his political career, though, author David Stewart shows that the moniker greatly overstates Madison's role at the Constitutional Convention of 1787. While he has shaped the understanding of that gathering, due to his copious notes describing the proposals by and debates among the delegates, others had more significant impact on the compromises that ultimately shaped the Constitution.Indeed, as Stewart capably shows in "The Summer of 1787," much of the important work in producing a frame of government satisfactory to those gathered in Philadelphia happened outside of Madison's observation in countless committee meetings and informal gatherings at dinners and boardinghouses. With the conviction that something drastic needed to be done to save the fledgling republic, the men who gathered in Philadelphia spent most of their waking hours strategizing, schmoozing, and methodically working through the issues facing the reorganization of the federal government.Multiple issues threatened to prevent agreement. Slaveholders demanded certain protections, particularly given the consensus that the importation of slaves must soon end, which ultimately became the infamous 3/5 compromise. Small states feared that their interests would be trampled by the largest states, which led to seemingly unending debates about representation in Congress, ultimately solved by allocating representatives by population and senators evenly by state.In fact, the key debates were over the structure and powers of the legislative branch. The national executive was important, but the overwhelming assumption was that Gen. George Washington, who was elected president of the Constitutional Convention, would serve as the first executive. The man who had retired from the army and returned home after winning independence for the United States was trusted to rule well. Whether from exhaustion or disinterest, the particulars of the judicial branch were left to the first Congress to decide.Given how heated were certain debates and how inflexible the demands of certain coalitions, it is a wonder that the delegates were able to agree on a government charter. (Indeed, Stewart's book might be called, "Miracle at Philadelphia," but that is the title of Catherine Bowen's classic book about the Convention, written about a half century ago.) One of Stewart's main arguments, necessarily circumstantial, is the key role played by senior statesmen like Washington and Benjamin Franklin in encouraging the delegates to persevere and accept compromises to produce a workable Constitution. Indeed, more than some other historians, Stewart suggests that Washington staked his reputation on this effort to save the country from the untenable Articles of Confederation.With a background in law, Stewart has an strong grasp on the technical arguments and debates surrounding the Constitution (which he also demonstrates in his excellent book on the impeachment of Andrew Johnson). His writing style offers clarity and vigor, even when incorporating quotations using the stilted cadences of 18th Century English. Ultimately, he has produced a dramatic and compelling account of the men, many all but forgotten, who deliberately struggled to produce the frame that still guides the US government more than two centuries later.

      1 person found this helpful

    • 4/5
      Informative and just plain good fun. While MIRACLE AT PHILADELPHIA will probably always remain the so-called "definitive" book about the convention, this one is a much more entertaining read. Stewart proceeds chronologically through the convention, yet organizes each chapter around a key theme, issue, or debate. You'll spend one chapter watching the South try to work its will over the horrid 3/5s clause, another listening to grumbling about the election of the President, and another mediating the wrangling over small state rights. Rather than read speeches or pore over the finer points of debate, you'll instead be treated to something of a historical suspense novel -- will they reach an agreement? Will the crafty Luther Martin bog down proceedings? Will John Rutledge work his will? And will George Washington ever say anything? Stewart also brings to life some of the unsung, and previously unknown, heroes of the Consitution, not only inside the Philadelphia State House, but beyond. You'll read about the "Ipswich Miracle" -- the story of (perhaps) America's first truly successful lobbyist -- that mirrored the debates on slavery in Philadelphia so closely that some suspected a conspiracy. You'll get to know David Brearley, the still largely unknown delegate from new Jersey who solved the problems of the presidency, and the quiet Nathaniel Gorham of Massachusetts who, technically, presided over much of the session -- as it sat as "Committee of the Whole" -- while the even more silent George Washington sat with the Virginia delegation. Jefferson once called those at the convention an "assembly of demigods." But in Stewart's hands, they become something more compelling: human beings. They bicker, they politick, they call each other names, they rush through work when they want to go home, and -- just as politicians do today -- they posture and swagger, even behind closed doors. But they could also listen, compromise, see the greater good, argue persuasively, and write beautifully -- and those qualities, ultimately, are what make the Constitution such a wonderful human -- and, in this case, uniquely American -- invention.

      1 person found this helpful

    • 4/5
      Excellent basic review of the Constitutional Convention including major issues, major personages, procedures and interesting side digressions. Sadly for a popular history, it presumes a fair amount of background in the era to be fully grasped. My guess is this was a result of page count limits from the editor. It also passes over lightly the degree of resistance to ratification, especially over the absence of a specific Bill of Rights. However well worth reading and keeping for reference.
    • 4/5
      I'm not a huge reader of history or non-fiction in general. However, I was interested in learning more about American history when I started this.I guess it's pretty good. It goes into more detail than I really need, but I know others love that. It drags a bit for me because I can sum it up as, "they met, they argued, they wrote drafts, they argued, it was hot, they argued, it was finished THE END."If you want the abridged version, read the first two chapters to see who was involved, skip to the end and then read the copy of the Constitution in the Appendix. Sorted.
    • 4/5
      This was a fascinating book about the writing of the US Constitution. I learned a lot. You never think about the amount of compromise that has to go into a document like the Constitution. This book dwelt particularly on the compromises on slavery. I don't know if it was as important an issue as the author made it out to be. Sometimes the book had the feel of something the author wanted to emphasize so he looked for all of the references to this one thing.The process itself was so influenced by the personalities involved. The author gave each person a little biographical section at a time when that person became important in the debate. I now need to find a copy of The Federalist Papers. These are essays that John Adams wrote in support of the Constitution while the states were voting on ratification.The thing that was most interesting to me was the role that Ben Franklin played in the proceedings. He was one of Pennsylvania's delegates, though he wasn't able to attend much because of his health. But when he was there he was always able to calm tempers, turn an unfruitful debate or propose something so outrageous that the delegate got back on track. He sacrificed some ideas he wanted to smooth the path of conciliation. He stated he didn't much care what was in the Constitution as long as there was a Constitution. I don't think that many people can be that clear about their goals, knowing which things to sacrifice for the whole.
    • 4/5
      - Stewart provides a clear understanding of the people/issues that played into producing our Constitution…especially the bargain over slavery and all the awful future results - Surprised to learn James Madison (known as the “Father of the Constitution”) was not a significant individual during the Constitution…D Stewart writes on approximately 70 issues that Madison supported only approximately 30 were voted and approved by the other delegates. Additionally, J Madison was not selected on the most significant committees- John Rutlelge(Committee Chair to Initiate the initial Constitution), David Brearly (Committee Chair to recommend Presidential Powers) and Gouverneur Morris (Committee Chair for drafting the Constitution) are all major players during the Constitution that history has forgotten- I found interesting a couple of crazy ideas were proposed and rejected: (1) A life term for the President and (2) giving voters the right to vote for three Presidential candidates- Major issue I had with this book…Stewart writes that direct popular election of the President was immediately rejected (8-1 or 9-1 vote) at the convention. However, in his appendix he concludes that the reason the convention delegates had for creating the Electoral College no longer applies. I believe the appendix on the Electoral College supports D Stewart’s agenda in support of popular election for President and not the true beliefs of our Founding Fathers

    Book preview

    The Summer of 1787 - David O. Stewart

    ī.abook_preview_excerpt.html}rG寤ŘdVDQjL@$&A#kETfTU |X_v>d̬cj @>~۟>^^ޜgo>\g?ۋϯo}]?iӏ۟\֗볕U!]ϪveU7}VoeU括쳲6޵of{![ k2rC mw//Cu};וy]/gC޺|܅*2COF*Oڷx.ʙ.,'Mw2Ь`FF_7вdUpAdZ Nl:Iv!w-C'5~'mq28uo=&{Y-xA)l]7;Mu͝.Eq硪[PB ?䇅NuVa7;y_CoeK-]XeYn;.}etv(-&*26l\d([V&se{"K!&tY ն;dSIĐmYUꝡIdsȰMYot&DDX{B5x8_'Kw ]we"rD(CySb>gU$u}d iߗrE Ng&DfO"k.ۈx`4k].]\;ɮn1_X/{Ֆ]vmًB[d0¯zRlMd_%ƾVUk0/dzJ,bNU&b6T.dL+.oq 6+UYo;UU \rܹ kh_.}+,ȗa:\+'u폌,04:*}-Ub9Ю\N#*]5Wrj;e{W nX%lJl"w/j순rrHCy-XD}h ,`hgЮSJKŗf?o;(Qrh*k)K[Nn1R^Ԅ(V8TBݭrptrz+[..K}_U2b"O `A`$ּ@'c:к3dG7ۋӓg<׬עջ _6OюO,'Ao߈ޓqrRƂntjhmhx"M&PE ҵk1Cnl+G5IvmܪjVWf]_r`(r H}]Zd0Om0A#2沅=K0'?鏟-{䄿Ț5(:\S*^`tFh: }&`iL۬% uhJV;A1ێ X&)$녗O2f@yM rjqQSC% {+\܇^dud7^8b%ANj5Ir\{Gar6:Nw?eF]v#ҋ#N,c{wnQ)/eaD vrRzb8Nb+{&[@A{QHVd Ѻ-[ni 'JM,V$p+D$8@ؕk6u(&NZ6ڪ?Yxx ,ܰ @fJWQGf"WɺGSqkEoq-6hMV(/1PtT P>3n@0nBj ceL˵ШR|CȠ"Dt Ay$C , f-ܗE& Q\,b-٫Yod=V[*n'Dd9ᬅ_԰ٯA9SP>[Rڨ_ ł^l67NY=GM [YQ"OdO[iZ +s5yu Hx%@P\HXJm#gBT _'k999ԢYҸ=3 8;+1}-zEl a'@D4USOQ܋=\Ἔb'+"*&|e~'MN.t ĉ< O ޝd׮~ܿ :F Pb]?8C@S81<)tz TpS?͙6稬o#5Pp*(|O%BWxqark\d&5J1sOB ] *q||CW74 (H1Z4_NeOkL@)/SIu2b]a R5GAkδjw1,6$'zPpF)ڻGӇUmm' d:?<ӬFGF ˵,zܱY6{e]kGϸr,Jc[zo+"dዎytlv mo ;0xqo<3W?/wqxۉ,Q=RjN^$ ۋwuG ;P> 2ħ!77ٜ /nHSyL(|*W)q}}zسqLafػ݆E=L!T$R7NIDHn.h Տ~`Zm'>ܣ ('Ж47N/W5|E@=H9@hM?]!1o k_cD5C`5# (jPlcU Jsng/FoY4ܼ|b!tu)8}FN?ٯiW#^oˊa\ ]DsMteOonN.~9Z%["ȥ oCq\g;ʪ:^x=b̚=s_u :?\h<٭˪C31}|?_ߜv4J|hY~Dk8|l6H\^c+eZzˣMW}t=/_WW7h>"[x~]Y^+_Kj}xa\2K.ЫJñ ߗyx^m(y#2/b9K)%^9}?ژI{;4L*Ńr y=W-~{4w[wW~j3׶ܦo L. #qr[ۃ S|ġ>: @q>#6lꐱ\f˞}8_/^>$|ЫʕCgC~~<}[N5᳣ lΪ]q?yQ#u-rFN)(ã%>\^dg]^/J- %: 9gtx}WRQr[j~ܴ=q[UNL$8 A!q[ƛlVXZZܹy1ug15^Ӿ)tz9}'-2z:8mòn rK!V;D \CIE]):z1\d idwo!edMz=)r:]Hzݷy75 ݎ$ d\[V3۽W~UJ8㨦*1X*4VsݺU҂I#e(֫Щkt|ȫBEW-4YcB JF{eg,}CV8QŽ2x8#.똲e;f10,@oXQO#E)eJ5Gv*r@#[Ř;eʀ 351uR̲MRnʗѠ/T\ Br})t`i E-./k!GSJaYѤFά8L3-rʼ%߄.yY׉yfWm@$Β('eȫnS#;?!yvj&m}f ]a)Ptx] $u  L#a;茒SQZa(_ 1Ӌmom]&:oTC2vh"JJm[ޏjllKkd)5ش~!x[Ɩ QONPDFhq> eamo[XVu:v̫c (H;P*U+R[e<٭=g;*!TxHyRBb}$ Yl;+/CE,Y,Ua:#cx5`B(`,4I9YMV(w] j?'_P :KcF׵2lN*uKNK_'QzϊBWFM^!6M+L٪mFq\D­+j1D+3epQj3ВeuNG{H% Z (G`&lLfN,#[mWy'jt& 16SMʪ?<%lbC_٪iGYOM k\=I,f#(T8UKU0u tYD!*HF$@P"j35E`Bj C텵>S+u[Lqx6QfE  x-p‹sW^ T$S#Uᮝ* 9ݠ$IUY9}$fX*[QtCN\S!=Cvhb t8eFQ)b Չ%$iY'^1"HO\'VQf݀2jZgA '₏Ք;!_EPF5u0>^Qlmrrsi;Z!9U nYO uayH sbj>aQ?߳wؿP|u qF0@ݠQ(˪Bz>=]Y7,-f`8PR`p8|1$#KߺbQMǣ dx#GQGl?mDYYGeVx5 Hr+ԋz,ίIn 2^ݑ+ʙ ǂgx,\zOupl.`QeKĵ`yvb/8(X`}2-]dP%$tCMN0p{Mc*gݍ/!7@ZVNf0_9rhEN @ZO8U p;_"!ŕPҩh]@7!’OoE5F1J`7IopR@EAIe6 l)[/*8ݖe73\;PbJ]rX߼f8ZVq[ "|,,.i+#b"PYEFxEu;ZFJ1k[on@F42Y1PCi$w`+w[;n^ 1N(zǣe`v~n pcPBU BJ˱ ^4$KH\pƬDnCI?Y%mٲR5Яd8݆16FPArQYƸ*ne7,UL[s޲ @FSPqԴ"ld` i,ux^ܤmՌK9u]Z-bRRՄÖ¯FC }=Roe JE^sxcV*RLqY3͊}XpV9` ;YS|,щ#8ʼqsh Jޘ0`dGE9vR/}R@~G]P4b9-('('Ǧh)nv IT c昭Lc%KyS\;d+ XE!:hFKˇRۚEY mӏ RS.WNAC{URADZvƌat NS+&O(yt %u>LLAU7%nT|$1 +3klbi4@Xp|ezD:հO@fB9q MsaS1mMAwJR#0@ rLZ#eI]\oǦ ڡHU\JF/l48M8O<7o Q4(hAr$vў6Eܜ 8rce%? wҞ|pv~dρƑf,{#7+J.(\=94EnXRSy~v̀4D2+fJ{E|݌-zlZ: ivi4_.88RKk$_P9 [ 6ZE݆aC*cFqhz⃙/wla.c=&F P+-Ff($D4Nɕ2m<+@Uzq6S*r6(W#%;42?X,˘Dک8OPsaؤN.a؎FG,W?èm뱈 dD<9"B=rF-<:VD^iK1zl-[SA 4T SRҭS:k('sZD ŻhV % DGu mNᲁS=~^(W~LO yŨh(*Ko]O!:Df=AUښig#qmO VR ŇiKmę1;y5,d%MH"SC1(֣ahvt "n9 _OIWeo+6ӗjٶ w pӘFE[m>+}s#SgqЈ $;X"B;)h}vB@6I8^톦aIK :XZ%xwXGc-"} :F*"r DU-(K(aGʫ x =bt+ގl"XDs,u BC/Jr\Yr+]{v`±3hiGGB6 Lu)Pk &L [( uR"O|$x4/#【i; ] ӝk,$ֹ̮4R#-Eڕ yXrz,fRmpֈfa `k]>ޛQ$ؚM* $ǰ t`W`uƠFGnX4uN6M\/yk"UNn<^aq.1}欉(\o?>jō6pfևN,b+?C7I(G ϰ)ӁV䕚nñHM.FJRq$2bwbdьeźxzu-չֆtb!-u +Ľfuy&`>kkz잶O, wx66g7Mx *n2/v*+m?G4 YY tWe"q !(* >N $.6{T>0$^ZZIi.Pop>' ^r{^TEtKDX1s(c1zM_~?1G"TIS\#t|ZaҎubo4.|;߽t{qWgiW{ $d7(Kby̮ɗcTOVSѺY=#X ְ Ӹ3cd%hr|#:!gF`.vlPj,51{/>'(2riPALP. eBbT~]v ~KKfp4C [kOL,y^K917gIk&ÉOF-9T$}c޽>y<~^XaS·^+ ]3ˢHqmɆK&{0,gf^2tdG&4hg8X8m&bxm0pEyF*IjK9"RjO'<2 |~ .nbX&3]R&ed5FO"`*.NP˴f鳭S"N)e_[x͔5T&'b seo~uB$"!Pʈ-DqW!.Ⱥ5 4p4Pu1!C_nH|.=3ėhy߆|h&gr:{i~cpO`K{O) )0z'&X^OIOD5QaM<@kAv: $F:(EÌrlnҪXķL0Y2Lz 0)-0)LXdDv*kh&Nk7ڐ^ 47eJ5DVDvl?b-ڝ&~52ŋNQ- C#0ahfE6% q^)W@Ϟ.L-7`( ` MibiH'!M?Q?s`Sf.Jva$l\˕64VP5$4#c(G0(h` ih22G%_e[/ԕ(gV1nċ18!1ڡGƹW0A'*XH2CAUwoiV/ BLNl Ptŷ_kvPyD"_X=CC{$ѣƱQC<,ӪsILʹo̾W:5Y*JGX{OjC~:Sk^H@HeN sOs՝B5:!̂CVչ #.xǥ$uց1!iB#ZEVނ5CA>T9jN0-ɷ&yeeY#dL?jL7'[bFX:vWPc痡*EiHr@zc}xZ;9 B˃bD!R2j'# g? cy.]ܛb!Bb>g1j`@NAlY)A"Ԙjc9"̪]'ڋԪ&>;-zD!χm>ITIN~KeIzBUYTFJI !a ';>$DxȤjH:#-LY0XG*}; g"[(:٨RÚN$d K" 66Le&2VX 3#\3bj&* >*Iͨn3no =*H.: 5J:olDjMtdH4h̾ZJ%Ί==urz|fGWo{H3Bpw Fӆv؂lڼ&Sϡ?c.dg`e:2c#~gܰc%T?0LesH"pj`_Oc Yd’g=.~tGVD Y SJh|VCC{)VC8V,1 o  T;/rӎ$< հXUN`BcЗ7n0Ϯc#EX]^2[$,jEkȓ;p'PQH!$M]zQ,!xZ[ N"~Df֭MEČ. ]ǼYvN|1;lKv@跇wmUD F vSFX`]B{3-*Z\IdnØ7]HrxVcJ@<<\³>1qr769>Rm/obҭx!"UKe`$+5,` EJX/z' ODKJR(۷*Ni)OAOv5=/gXzuRS: :(GT2Xl1 J i]c*t-P_Vو5Z( e\L36bΪFE JQϓ2SSڢ uڔ@`lrbplt%u<% aԘ4 F oi,^t`$>]<yچ]mY2lLM q:~>9/2iwڏ.v?ޥ=e$>&u؊N#fKl+išXj{F[RIMsmCõI4ůji8 |x&;fF$l-#34|,UD~=4lqPcXMpW^. کt ltO O6ij~ -CԤ`+̵?`E[EjPg3,cF:FR_J.5̯QkOiiԼ \?/J-*u.*x)!z/J.zY2%j4 2t-:)}?ݞy⛨kwd7'e1a,&J9A1І}ljc\OH{uͦ^hu溡 `صk=>^fڻ$g(R;w롅K4D}&q8IzgvA7 w`+6QK#NPCgĂnAtb<1kʵRVu2^pq[,O1)p!@!rӋ7|c!IN3;}gJ3IǽEَd|Lp z2j7[W7>ڻJ,X'2?.2%\4bL-3lpPڦW4L *ٱN&4f1j6y~dryDiDl˖\&hR,iX";~i,YY‰MT:P(v;1xrr`0Ҝ~4Wڱƍdִ5NGTk+Tjdn},V~,zZP[=^5Kۅ>}>n-T~݆FWF,L_ E 5Y* ! Or)1e? ,u_sY.:ΐ
    Enjoying the preview?
    Page 1 of 1