The eighty-five famous essays by Hamilton, Madison, and Jay--known
collectively as the Federalist Papers--comprise the lens through which
we typically view the ideas behind the U.S. Constitution. But we are
wrong to do so, writes David Brian Robertson, if we really want to know
what the Founders were thinking. In this provocative new account of the
framing of the Constitution, Robertson observes that the Federalist
Papers represented only one side in a fierce argument that was settled
by compromise--in fact, multiple compromises.
Drawing on numerous primary sources, Robertson unravels the highly
political dynamics that shaped the document. Hamilton and Madison, who
hailed from two of the larger states, pursued an ambitious vision of a
robust government with broad power. Leaders from smaller states
envisioned only a few added powers, sufficient to correct the disastrous
weakness of the Articles of Confederation, but not so strong as to
threaten the governing systems within their own states. The two sides
battled for three arduous months; the Constitution emerged piece by
piece, the product of an evolving web of agreements. Robertson examines
each contentious debate, including arguments over the balance between
the federal government and the states, slavery, war and peace, and much
more. In nearly every case, a fractious, piecemeal, and very political
process prevailed. In this way, the convention produced a government of
separate institutions, each with the will and ability to defend its
independence. Majorities would rule, but the Constitution made it very
difficult to assemble majorities large enough to let the government act.
Brilliantly argued and deeply researched, this book will change the way
we think of "original intent." With a bracing willingness to challenge
old pieties, Robertson rescues the political realities that created the
government we know today.
