| List Price: | |
| Price: | $11.95 & eligible for FREE Super Saver Shipping on orders over $25. Details... |
| You Save: | $0.00(0.00%) |
| Binding: | Kindle Edition |
| EAN: | |
| Feature: | |
| Label: | Oxford University Press, USA |
| Publisher: | Oxford University Press, USA |
| Studio: | Oxford University Press, USA |
| Tags: |
Editorial Reviews
Today we hold the Constitution in such high regard that we can hardly imagine how hotly contested was its adoption. In fact, many of the thirteen states saw fierce debate over the document, and ratification was by no means certain. Virginia, the largest and most influential state, approved the Constitution by the barest of margins, and only after an epic political battle between James Madison and Patrick Henry. Now Richard Labunski offers a dramatic account of a time when the entire American experiment hung in the balance, only to be saved by the most unlikely of heroes--the diminutive and exceedingly shy Madison. Here is a vividly written account of not one but several major political struggles which changed the course of American history. Labunski takes us inside the sweltering converted theater in Richmond, where for three grueling weeks, the soft-spoken Madison and the charismatic Patrick Henry fought over whether Virginia should ratify the Constitution. The stakes were enormous. If Virginia voted no, George Washington could not become president, New York might follow suit and reject the Constitution, and the young nation would be thrust into political chaos. But Madison won the day by a handful of votes, mollifying Anti-Federalist fears by promising to add a bill of rights to the Constitution. To do this, Madison would have to win a seat in the First Congress. Labunski shows how the vengeful Henry prevented Madison's appointment to the Senate and then used his political power to ensure that Madison would run against his good friend, Revolutionary War hero James Monroe, in a House district teeming with political enemies. Overcoming great odds, Madison won by a few hundred votes, allowing him to attend the First Congress and sponsor the Bill of Rights. Packed with colorful details about life in early America, this compelling and important narrative is the first serious book about Madison written in many years. It will return this under-appreciated patriot to his rightful place among the Founding Fathers and shed new light on a key turning point in our nation's history.
Related Reviews
A perfectly titled and well written piece of U.S. history
"James Madison and the Struggle for the Bill of Rights" was a very enjoyable read, and one that I would definitely enjoy reading again. It is full of detail, but doesn't lack on readability either. Unlike some of the reviewers, I enjoyed the details of weather conditions and felt that this information was important to telling the struggle for the Bill of Rights as weather was a huge obstacle to travel in that time. I also was able to better picture what it would be like to sit in a hot, sultry, building with no ventilation (as when the windows had to be closed due to the noisy streets) and spend hours discussing how much power the constitution would grant the federal government or if it indeed would greatly infringe on individual liberties.
Lets go out on a limb, and say that James Madison probably wouldn't make it in politics today. He was 5'4", shy, soft spoken, and portrayed by the author as extremely timid when speaking in front of a large group. He also "flip-flopped" on his stance on the Bill of Rights, which at that time seemed to be democracy working (Today he would probably be eaten alive); Madison seems to not only believe passionately about the importance of a strong federal government, but evolves to believe just as passionately about the protection of the people's individual rights (Thus- A Bill of Rights). OK, it could be argued that he had to compromise and promise support of a Bill of Rights to get elected, but the author seems to feel that Madison truly believed in their importance. The story of Madison is very interesting and even for his time he seems to be somewhat of an underdog whose passion, intellect, and love for his country allowed him to prevail over his short-comings. His election to the House is nothing but fascinating as once again the cards were stacked against him (Thanks to Patrick Henry who gerrymandered his district so that he would likely lose).
The story of Virginia's constitutional congress was every bit as fascinating, and it can be said that human nature and the psychology of politics had many similarities then as it does now. Many people had passionately different philosophical views of what government should and shouldn't be. As could be argued today, both sides had some good points. It was interesting how fear seemed to perpetuate both sides passion. The Anti-Federalists being fearful of a monarchal type of government invading on individual liberty, and the Federalists fearful that individual states wouldn't have economic power or the ability to defend themselves. The author portrays the high-stakes decision of Virginia ratifying the constitution without a Bill of Rights. He points out that if this hadn't happened, George Washington wouldn't have even been eligible to serve in the new government. Anyways, the story of our founders verbally battling it out in a theater in Shocco-Bottom in Richmond is also well portrayed. For anyone interested in American history and politics, I would recommend this book as a must read.
Lets go out on a limb, and say that James Madison probably wouldn't make it in politics today. He was 5'4", shy, soft spoken, and portrayed by the author as extremely timid when speaking in front of a large group. He also "flip-flopped" on his stance on the Bill of Rights, which at that time seemed to be democracy working (Today he would probably be eaten alive); Madison seems to not only believe passionately about the importance of a strong federal government, but evolves to believe just as passionately about the protection of the people's individual rights (Thus- A Bill of Rights). OK, it could be argued that he had to compromise and promise support of a Bill of Rights to get elected, but the author seems to feel that Madison truly believed in their importance. The story of Madison is very interesting and even for his time he seems to be somewhat of an underdog whose passion, intellect, and love for his country allowed him to prevail over his short-comings. His election to the House is nothing but fascinating as once again the cards were stacked against him (Thanks to Patrick Henry who gerrymandered his district so that he would likely lose).
The story of Virginia's constitutional congress was every bit as fascinating, and it can be said that human nature and the psychology of politics had many similarities then as it does now. Many people had passionately different philosophical views of what government should and shouldn't be. As could be argued today, both sides had some good points. It was interesting how fear seemed to perpetuate both sides passion. The Anti-Federalists being fearful of a monarchal type of government invading on individual liberty, and the Federalists fearful that individual states wouldn't have economic power or the ability to defend themselves. The author portrays the high-stakes decision of Virginia ratifying the constitution without a Bill of Rights. He points out that if this hadn't happened, George Washington wouldn't have even been eligible to serve in the new government. Anyways, the story of our founders verbally battling it out in a theater in Shocco-Bottom in Richmond is also well portrayed. For anyone interested in American history and politics, I would recommend this book as a must read.
I found this book engaging for the most part. I especially appreciated some of the snippets of speeches and the description of the interplay between Madison and Patrick Henry and James Monroe and others.
I was a bit dissapointed that the book did not offer a more rigorous treatment of the author's hypothesis, and that it did not treat more fully the ideas behind the political debate and machinations that are documented. It was a little bit too much a loose "journalism" approach, telling the political story.
Also, as another review suggests, the narrative thread sometimes seems to waver ... many many details that don't serve to advance either the story or the critical hypothesis.
But -- I'm glad I stumbled on it, glad to have spent some time with it. Perhaps after I have read more deeply on these subjects (I am just starting a personal project to learn about American history) I would be less patient with the books deficiencies. For now, for me, it was an interesting re-introduction to some of the characters and questions of the time.
I was a bit dissapointed that the book did not offer a more rigorous treatment of the author's hypothesis, and that it did not treat more fully the ideas behind the political debate and machinations that are documented. It was a little bit too much a loose "journalism" approach, telling the political story.
Also, as another review suggests, the narrative thread sometimes seems to waver ... many many details that don't serve to advance either the story or the critical hypothesis.
But -- I'm glad I stumbled on it, glad to have spent some time with it. Perhaps after I have read more deeply on these subjects (I am just starting a personal project to learn about American history) I would be less patient with the books deficiencies. For now, for me, it was an interesting re-introduction to some of the characters and questions of the time.
Loved this book! I read it in one day...couldn't put it down. Learn how our precious Bill of Rights almost didn't come into being, and learn about the men who made sure it did.
Lots of struggle, not much of what it was over
First of all, I do want to say that author Richard Labunski did a fine job detailing the trials and travails of the road to the first Congress travelled by James Madison, one of our most indispensable Founders. Labunski reminds us that history was, while in the making, not nearly as foregone as it seems this far removed. Madison could have lost his election to the First session of the House of Representatives after the new government was formed causing the Constitution to perhaps lose the addition of the Bill of Rights and that would have been calamitous, indeed.
I enjoyed the story of Madison's road as told by Labunski. Madison has been one of those founders who's position as a great Founder has been rocky. Up one decade and down another. Sometimes he has been considered a far lesser light than he deserves to be considered. Currently, he seems to be up which is fortunate. I think he should remain there. He is by far one of the most brilliant Founders we had and it is good that Labunski treats Madison with the respect he deserves.
Here is where I feel the book was lacking, though. Why was the Bill of Rights so important? What were the philosophies, the influences, the reasons the amendments were fought over? Labunski does not take much time to delve further under the surface to ferret out those reasons. He briefly mentions things here and there as the book moves along those lines, but I think his book would have been more complete with a bit more of it.
I found myself wondering what all the fuss was over far too much while reading the book and feel Labunski shorted the reader a fuller explanation.
Still, I give the book a pretty good rating. It is a good tale that is not often told (which is why I think he should have gone deeper, by the way).
It come recommended by me, anyway.
I enjoyed the story of Madison's road as told by Labunski. Madison has been one of those founders who's position as a great Founder has been rocky. Up one decade and down another. Sometimes he has been considered a far lesser light than he deserves to be considered. Currently, he seems to be up which is fortunate. I think he should remain there. He is by far one of the most brilliant Founders we had and it is good that Labunski treats Madison with the respect he deserves.
Here is where I feel the book was lacking, though. Why was the Bill of Rights so important? What were the philosophies, the influences, the reasons the amendments were fought over? Labunski does not take much time to delve further under the surface to ferret out those reasons. He briefly mentions things here and there as the book moves along those lines, but I think his book would have been more complete with a bit more of it.
I found myself wondering what all the fuss was over far too much while reading the book and feel Labunski shorted the reader a fuller explanation.
Still, I give the book a pretty good rating. It is a good tale that is not often told (which is why I think he should have gone deeper, by the way).
It come recommended by me, anyway.
Dr. Labunski captures the emotion, immediacy and intensity of the debate over the Bill of Rights as only a journalist of the day might be expected to write. A truly new perspective on Mr. Madison as "vote counter" and "political strategist."
Read the printed book, not the Kindle version
There are several useful appendices at the end of the book. I read it on the Kindle, which makes it difficult to refer to the appendices. So I recommend reading the printed version.
About 30% of the book is about the Virgina ratification convention, and then there is a chapter on Madison's candidacy for the U.S. House (which he lost) and U.S. Senate (which he won). It's interesting because Patrick Henry had gerrymandered the Virginia district in which Madison ran to make it almost impossible for him to win; but thanks to his brilliant diplomacy he did win.
All that is preamble to the actual passage and ratification of the Bill Rights in the first Congress, which is the meat of the book. Is is an accurate account, but not very lively.
First of all, Madison shepherded the amendments through the House. Some Federalists felt the bill of rights was unnecessary because the Constitution gave the government no express power to abridge individual rights. But as some moderate Federalists admitted, the "necessary and proper" clause in Article I did create a loophole that a tyrant might exploit. Many anti-Federalists opposed any legislation regarding a bill of rights, calling instead for a second constitutional convention to restore sovereignty to the states.
After the Senate passed its own version of the bill, Madison served on the conference committee that resolved the differences between the House and Senate bills. At Madison's insistence, the "separation of church and state" clause was revived in the first amendment, after the Senate had weakened it -- one of the more fascinating aspects of the story.
About 30% of the book is about the Virgina ratification convention, and then there is a chapter on Madison's candidacy for the U.S. House (which he lost) and U.S. Senate (which he won). It's interesting because Patrick Henry had gerrymandered the Virginia district in which Madison ran to make it almost impossible for him to win; but thanks to his brilliant diplomacy he did win.
All that is preamble to the actual passage and ratification of the Bill Rights in the first Congress, which is the meat of the book. Is is an accurate account, but not very lively.
First of all, Madison shepherded the amendments through the House. Some Federalists felt the bill of rights was unnecessary because the Constitution gave the government no express power to abridge individual rights. But as some moderate Federalists admitted, the "necessary and proper" clause in Article I did create a loophole that a tyrant might exploit. Many anti-Federalists opposed any legislation regarding a bill of rights, calling instead for a second constitutional convention to restore sovereignty to the states.
After the Senate passed its own version of the bill, Madison served on the conference committee that resolved the differences between the House and Senate bills. At Madison's insistence, the "separation of church and state" clause was revived in the first amendment, after the Senate had weakened it -- one of the more fascinating aspects of the story.
James Madison and the Struggle for the Bill of Rights
Although I am an amateur student of this period in American History, I was not familiar with the events described in this book. Therefore I found the book most enlightening. The details of the Virginia ratification convention offer important insights into the founding of the United States. The insights into the character of James Madison ware very informative. The book was very well written as well.
The book is an amazing expose of the struggle to establish our iconic and cherished Bill of Rights. It is amazing for a couple of reasons; to most people it is amazing that Madison was the dominant initiate not only the Constitution but the Bill of rights as well; additonal amazement comes when it is realized that he had such a hard time getting the Bill of rights from Congress out to the People. The author does an excellent job of detailing the discussions, without over using quotations and documents of the time. In so doing he grants to the average American an insight into the sources and principles Madison sought to achieve. Linking the Ratifying Conventions of the Constitution to the document is of paramount importance to a more comprehensive knowledge of the Founding Era, for it was the objections of the Ratifying Conventions to a latitudinous interpretation of the Constitution that inspired the very desire for the Bill of Rights to begin with.
The book motivated me to examine the Preamble of the Bill of Rights that was forwarded to the States which included the following:
THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.
The fear of a misconstruction, or an innacurate interpretation kept some who ratified waiting further assurances, hence the Amendmendments proposed by Madison. As the wording of the Amendments changed going through the committees of the House and The Senate, during the Ratification of the Amendments some were disappointed that, what we would come to know as the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, were not more explicit exegetical tools. Over the years Madison constantly responded in the following fashion,
"If a line can be drawn between the powers granted and the rights retained, it would seem to be the same thing whether the latter be secured by declaring that they shall not be abridged, or that the former shall not be extended.''
The book certainly helps in developing a larger consciousness of what the Amendments meant but also how the Constitution was originally meant to interpreted apparently through the Ninth And Tenth Amendment,
The book motivated me to examine the Preamble of the Bill of Rights that was forwarded to the States which included the following:
THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.
The fear of a misconstruction, or an innacurate interpretation kept some who ratified waiting further assurances, hence the Amendmendments proposed by Madison. As the wording of the Amendments changed going through the committees of the House and The Senate, during the Ratification of the Amendments some were disappointed that, what we would come to know as the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, were not more explicit exegetical tools. Over the years Madison constantly responded in the following fashion,
"If a line can be drawn between the powers granted and the rights retained, it would seem to be the same thing whether the latter be secured by declaring that they shall not be abridged, or that the former shall not be extended.''
The book certainly helps in developing a larger consciousness of what the Amendments meant but also how the Constitution was originally meant to interpreted apparently through the Ninth And Tenth Amendment,
Political history at its finest
James Madison and the Bill of Rights is another great addition to the Pivotal moments in American history series. The author does an excellent job of laying out what would happen had the bill of rights not been enacted and the path taken in Madison's evolution to the bill of rights. The author does an excellent job of taking the reader through the stages of the constitutional convention, the ratification process (focusing mostly on Virginia which was the pivotal lynchpin in getting New York's acquiescence) and then the formation of the new government followed by the development of the bill of rights. For those interested in political history this is a must read for the analysis on how the Bill of Rights and our early government was formed. This is a great starting point and an excellent primer for some of the more detailed works that follow. I strongly encourage everyone to read not only this entry into the series but the entire pivotal moments series for a true understanding of the major paradigm shifts in American history and how they impacted the development of the American psyche and were essential in our development of an American identity. In this case it is the codification of American liberties and the struggle to define those liberties that shed light on the values of the founders and the cautios nature of a limited government.
When listening to books on cd or I-Pod, particularly when non-fiction, I try to make sure I get unabridged versions so I don't feel slighted. With this cd, I could have used a little slighting.
James Madison was indeed important for passing the Bill of Rights. It couldn't have been more amazing since Madison originally believed that a bill of rights was not needed: since Congress was not granted the powers to infringe on basic it rights, so the argument went, there was no need for a bill to protect those rights. Alas, he changed. And this point should serve as a reminder for how difficult it is to rely on supposedly original principles in the Constitution. (Rakove, in Original Meanings, makes that point best.)
The book looks at three or so important points: the Constitutional Convention, the Virginia Constitutional ratification convention, and the First Congress's effort at passing the amendments that would form the Bill of Rights. The first part, the miracle in Philly, has been covered so much elsewhere that yet another treatment wasn't really so necessary. The Virginia ratification convention was fine, but the arguments were very much the same. The First Congress section was the most interesting. Tidbit of interest: Madison wanted the amendments to appear in the main body of the text. Imagine that! What we now know famously as the first ten amendments could have been scatter shot throughout the original document. Shortsightedness on that point by Madison, though he was forward thinking in most other regards.
Labunski did a fine job and it is perfect for those unfamiliar with the Philly stuff. Otherwise it is still fine.
James Madison was indeed important for passing the Bill of Rights. It couldn't have been more amazing since Madison originally believed that a bill of rights was not needed: since Congress was not granted the powers to infringe on basic it rights, so the argument went, there was no need for a bill to protect those rights. Alas, he changed. And this point should serve as a reminder for how difficult it is to rely on supposedly original principles in the Constitution. (Rakove, in Original Meanings, makes that point best.)
The book looks at three or so important points: the Constitutional Convention, the Virginia Constitutional ratification convention, and the First Congress's effort at passing the amendments that would form the Bill of Rights. The first part, the miracle in Philly, has been covered so much elsewhere that yet another treatment wasn't really so necessary. The Virginia ratification convention was fine, but the arguments were very much the same. The First Congress section was the most interesting. Tidbit of interest: Madison wanted the amendments to appear in the main body of the text. Imagine that! What we now know famously as the first ten amendments could have been scatter shot throughout the original document. Shortsightedness on that point by Madison, though he was forward thinking in most other regards.
Labunski did a fine job and it is perfect for those unfamiliar with the Philly stuff. Otherwise it is still fine.
A fascinating piece of history
The Bill of Rights was always just there at the end of the Constitution -- a list of unalienable rights to be interpreted, argued over and used to browbeat opponents in political discussions. I, for one, never gave much thought to how those 10 constitutional amendments came to exist within four years of the ratification of the Constitution in 1788.
Now that I know what a narrow thing ratification of the Constitution was (Virginia and New York sought to make adoption conditional upon the adoption of amendments; North Carolina and Rhode Island refused to ratify until the Bill of Rights passed Congress) and how difficult the adoption of amendments so soon after ratification, I'll certainly never take them for granted again. Anti-federalist opposition to the Constitution, particularly without a Bill of Rights to protect individual liberties, was very strong in Virginia, led as it was by the able orator Patrick Henry, who dominated the Virginia Legislature during the late 1780s.
On one point the book is clear: the amendments would not have been proposed and adopted without the guidance of James Madison, first as a member of the Virginia Constitutional Ratifying Convention and then as a member of the US House of Representatives. The story of his battle is a fascinating one, from the first use of gerrymandering to prevent him from being elected to the US House (this was Patrick Henry's idea and it didn't work), to the final triumph in 1791 when Virginia finally ratified the amendments.
If you thought dirty politics was born in the current era, think again. I was struck by how much political maneuvering, both explicit and behind the scenes, existed at a time most Americans think of in mythological terms. Our cherished heroes were politicians all, attempting to satisfy local demands while at the same time doing justice to the larger, longer term issues. They didn't always succeed, but this time they did, thanks to Madison's persistence.
I strongly recommend this book for the light it sheds on a period in US history that is rarely discussed. However, I have only given the unabridged audio edition of this book 4 stars because I thought the narrator read too fast. I found I had to listen to many passages two and three times follow them completely. It's one thing to read fiction at a fast clip, and another when you attempt to speed through historical narrative.
Now that I know what a narrow thing ratification of the Constitution was (Virginia and New York sought to make adoption conditional upon the adoption of amendments; North Carolina and Rhode Island refused to ratify until the Bill of Rights passed Congress) and how difficult the adoption of amendments so soon after ratification, I'll certainly never take them for granted again. Anti-federalist opposition to the Constitution, particularly without a Bill of Rights to protect individual liberties, was very strong in Virginia, led as it was by the able orator Patrick Henry, who dominated the Virginia Legislature during the late 1780s.
On one point the book is clear: the amendments would not have been proposed and adopted without the guidance of James Madison, first as a member of the Virginia Constitutional Ratifying Convention and then as a member of the US House of Representatives. The story of his battle is a fascinating one, from the first use of gerrymandering to prevent him from being elected to the US House (this was Patrick Henry's idea and it didn't work), to the final triumph in 1791 when Virginia finally ratified the amendments.
If you thought dirty politics was born in the current era, think again. I was struck by how much political maneuvering, both explicit and behind the scenes, existed at a time most Americans think of in mythological terms. Our cherished heroes were politicians all, attempting to satisfy local demands while at the same time doing justice to the larger, longer term issues. They didn't always succeed, but this time they did, thanks to Madison's persistence.
I strongly recommend this book for the light it sheds on a period in US history that is rarely discussed. However, I have only given the unabridged audio edition of this book 4 stars because I thought the narrator read too fast. I found I had to listen to many passages two and three times follow them completely. It's one thing to read fiction at a fast clip, and another when you attempt to speed through historical narrative.
This book starts out slowly, then starts to get better as it goes on, all in a rather dry (but no too dry) scholarly, yet popular tone. It provides a fairly detailed biography of James Madison from the end of the constitutional convention until the ratification of the Bill of Rights. An alternate subtitle could have just as well been "Madison vs. Henry", for Patrick Henry is set up as James Madison's persistent foil. The actual title is somewhat of a misnomer, for the battle over the Bill of Rights is given coverage as a second (and smaller) act, after the initial act of ratification of the constitution. As with many historical accounts, this book suffers from the availability of sources. Some well documented debates are given detailed coverage, while others without much historical record are barely passed over. This creates an illusion (however unfair) of mistaken significance of one event over the other. Though the focus is on Madison, there is very little attention given to events outside the "constitutional period." By a corollary, the book gives the impression that Madison was almost single-handedly responsible for dreaming up the constitution and driving its ratification. Aside from these shortcomings, it remains an interest take on the trials that had to be surmounted to give rise to the birth of the United States.
Highly readable and very informative.
James Madison was an unlikely hero during the constitional convention but his battles to add the Bill Of Rights to it are even more compelling. This book does an excellent job of recounting the maneuverings and compromises as Madison tries to satisfy both Federalists and his own party's doubts; even his best friend Thomas Jefferson is dubious about the Constitution without a Bill Of Rights. This course of action brings Madison in conflict with some of his fellow Virginians, most notably, a vengeful Patrick Henry, who wanted little or no central government anyway. He sets off on a no holds barred campaign to not only block the Constitution but also make sure Madison never serves in government again. It would seem to be Goliath versus David, given Henry's passionate oratory, but Madison triumphs in dogged, if not reluctant, determination.
This book is popular history for sure, and I think it may have been better (albeit less commercially successful) if it had been a bit more analytical and geared toward a different audience.
Labunski writes a narrative that revolves around James Madison's role in the constitution and Bill of Rights from pre-Constitutional Convention to ratification of the 10 amendments. It's a fairly short book, yet it's still filled with quite a bit of filler, such as Madison's physical ailments and 18th-century travel difficulties (these are interesting windows into that time period, but don't advance his narrative in most cases).
The positive: The book is very easy to read, even if he gets off topic on occasion. I was especially interested in Virginia's debates over the constitution and later the amendments, and I learned some things there. It covered some areas that aren't prominently dealt with in most overviews of the period.
The negative: I think Labunski spends insufficient time on the issues in Virginia. Less than half of this book actually pertains to the attempt to get a Bill of Rights. Labunski spends a lot of time on the Philadelphia convention, the states' conventions to ratify the constitution and Madison's run for Congress. I wish those topics had been dealt with quicker and more time spent on analyzing why the amendments were so important to people and so unpopular with certain legislators. He addresses these issues, but he generally sticks to quoting letters and debates rather than delving into the "why."
I'm glad I read the book; I just wish the contents fit the title more than they did.
Labunski writes a narrative that revolves around James Madison's role in the constitution and Bill of Rights from pre-Constitutional Convention to ratification of the 10 amendments. It's a fairly short book, yet it's still filled with quite a bit of filler, such as Madison's physical ailments and 18th-century travel difficulties (these are interesting windows into that time period, but don't advance his narrative in most cases).
The positive: The book is very easy to read, even if he gets off topic on occasion. I was especially interested in Virginia's debates over the constitution and later the amendments, and I learned some things there. It covered some areas that aren't prominently dealt with in most overviews of the period.
The negative: I think Labunski spends insufficient time on the issues in Virginia. Less than half of this book actually pertains to the attempt to get a Bill of Rights. Labunski spends a lot of time on the Philadelphia convention, the states' conventions to ratify the constitution and Madison's run for Congress. I wish those topics had been dealt with quicker and more time spent on analyzing why the amendments were so important to people and so unpopular with certain legislators. He addresses these issues, but he generally sticks to quoting letters and debates rather than delving into the "why."
I'm glad I read the book; I just wish the contents fit the title more than they did.
An up-close view of ratification
The best take-aways from the book are that [1:] the Constitution didn't just happen and that [2:] the Bill of Rights certainly didn't just happen. The worst involve Labunski's fixation on 18th Century travel, James Madison's weak speaking voice, and Madison's problems with his bowels. Labunski begins with the dissolution of the Articles of Confederation as the representatives sent to amend that ailing document end up concocting an entirely new Constitution. Calls for amendments to the Constitution arose immediately and continued through the ratification process.
Labunski traces the major arguments surrounding the Constitution and potential amendments. He highlights the philosophical positions of major characters such as Madison, Patrick Henry, James Monroe, and Edmund Randolph. Labunski views Virginia as the hotspot for ratification controversy, so most of the book is dedicated to Virginia and Virginians.
"James Madison and the Struggle..." plods along slowly, gets repetitive, and begins to feel like a dull civics lecture. It does capture the ideas and political machinations of the era, however, and present plenty of good information. Ultimately it demonstrates that the acceptance of the Constitution and Bill of Rights were not foregone conclusions or inevitable events.
Labunski traces the major arguments surrounding the Constitution and potential amendments. He highlights the philosophical positions of major characters such as Madison, Patrick Henry, James Monroe, and Edmund Randolph. Labunski views Virginia as the hotspot for ratification controversy, so most of the book is dedicated to Virginia and Virginians.
"James Madison and the Struggle..." plods along slowly, gets repetitive, and begins to feel like a dull civics lecture. It does capture the ideas and political machinations of the era, however, and present plenty of good information. Ultimately it demonstrates that the acceptance of the Constitution and Bill of Rights were not foregone conclusions or inevitable events.
Richard Labunski wrote a an exceptional book on the creation of the Bill of Rights, for which I give my great thanks and express my indefinite gratitude. He provided exceptional backdrop on each step towards the Bill of Rights formation and ratification, which made its reading all the more pleasureable. At some points in the reading I'd find myself seemingly sitting in the location where the event was unfolding. Not only was his prose exceptional, but the information conveyed was backed by extraordinary research and effort. There was no room for lack of understanding or foundation; you could feel the emotions of the contenders as you turned the page. Great thanks to Mr. Labunski for allowing me and others to have such a wonderful work in our libraries and minds.
I think you have to be very interested in politics (as I am) to enjoy this book. It was a fascinating and detailed look at some of the arguments for and against creating a Bill of Rights, including debates over the extent of state rights vs. a federal government. Extremely well researched and worth the time to read for the wealth of information.
THE FIGHT FOR THE BILL OF RIGHTS
In these times when the Bill of Rights is under constant attack, especially as they relate to the rights of criminal defendants and political oppositionists across a spectrum of issues, it is appropriate that militant defenders of those rights look at the history of the struggle to incorporate these seemingly self-evident rights into the American body politic. And that is the correct way to view this question-the struggle. At the Constitutional Convention in 1787, despite fights to have those rights incorporated into the organic frame of government, this action was defeated. Thus, when the author of the book under review entitled his book James Madison and the Struggle for the Bill of Rights he hit exactly the contradictory attitudes toward their implementation that has followed them from the beginning of the constitutional period (and continues in other guises today).
Many commentators have remarked that if a poll was taken of Americans today and the ideas of the Bill of Rights was presented in enumerated form they would be defeated as far too radical. Unfortunately there is some truth to this assertion. Thus, James Madison's struggle to have them incorporated through the constitutional amendment process takes on added significance today. I have commented more than once that the leaders of the American Revolution were big men (and they were for the most part men) out to do a big task-and they did it. And Madison played no small part in that revolutionary process around the construction of the constitution. This is the story presented here. The striking part about the whole struggle is that James Madison does not, on the basis of his reputation and lifestyle, come quickly to mind as the obvious leader of such actions. Nevertheless he, and essentially, he alone saw the process through from the winnowing out of the many proposed amendments from many quarters to the cumbersome ratification process. Hats off to Mr. Madison. Will future generations be able to say that we were the best defenders of those precious rights against those who relish the return of Star Chamber proceedings? The Bill of Rights, whatever their limitations, are not window dressing. Think about that the next time you have to invoke one of them.
Many commentators have remarked that if a poll was taken of Americans today and the ideas of the Bill of Rights was presented in enumerated form they would be defeated as far too radical. Unfortunately there is some truth to this assertion. Thus, James Madison's struggle to have them incorporated through the constitutional amendment process takes on added significance today. I have commented more than once that the leaders of the American Revolution were big men (and they were for the most part men) out to do a big task-and they did it. And Madison played no small part in that revolutionary process around the construction of the constitution. This is the story presented here. The striking part about the whole struggle is that James Madison does not, on the basis of his reputation and lifestyle, come quickly to mind as the obvious leader of such actions. Nevertheless he, and essentially, he alone saw the process through from the winnowing out of the many proposed amendments from many quarters to the cumbersome ratification process. Hats off to Mr. Madison. Will future generations be able to say that we were the best defenders of those precious rights against those who relish the return of Star Chamber proceedings? The Bill of Rights, whatever their limitations, are not window dressing. Think about that the next time you have to invoke one of them.
Tedious recounting of events without much analysis or perspective
I hate saying bad things about other people's books because I know how much hard work goes into each one, though I have to advise the reader of this review to find another book if you're interested in the creation of the Bill of Rights. If it weren't for this book being on audio disc I would never have finished it. It's very boring and flat. The material is doubtlessly interesting, and I imagine that depending upon the author's take on the subject, this book could come out in many different, yet equally interesting, permutations.
My strong criticism it that it is the book has no incisive analysis of the subject, nothing to make it read, no sense of perspective,...how this subject played out in the bigger scheme of things and over time. The epilogue was equally disappointing, offering the scantiest description of how the ideas contained in the Bill of Rights affected future generations. In fact, I was eagerly looking forward to reading the epilogue, it was the only thing keeping me going, and I was disappointed.
So, what we get is just a simply recounting of the events, without much to make the writing interesting. It really gets tedious and boring, sounding like a straight reading of an official transcript or diary especially when the author describes the proceedings of the Virginia Constitutional ratifying Convention and other similar events, which is what a lion's share of the book is.
Any suggestions??
My strong criticism it that it is the book has no incisive analysis of the subject, nothing to make it read, no sense of perspective,...how this subject played out in the bigger scheme of things and over time. The epilogue was equally disappointing, offering the scantiest description of how the ideas contained in the Bill of Rights affected future generations. In fact, I was eagerly looking forward to reading the epilogue, it was the only thing keeping me going, and I was disappointed.
So, what we get is just a simply recounting of the events, without much to make the writing interesting. It really gets tedious and boring, sounding like a straight reading of an official transcript or diary especially when the author describes the proceedings of the Virginia Constitutional ratifying Convention and other similar events, which is what a lion's share of the book is.
Any suggestions??
James Madison and the Struggle for the Bill of Rights
Much too repetitive, - particularly with respect to travel details, - too many references to bad roads, broken axles, seasonal weather issues, and Madison's gastrointestinal problems.
Narrative does not flow well.
Too much detail that fails to amplify a point. Much of the detail should have been left in the Appendices, it makes the narative turgid, and boring, the key elements of the "struggle" are masked.
Poor character development.
Probably of interest to the professional historian but the "going" is too heavy for the interested amateur.
Lousy editing, - perhaps the abridged version would have been "lighter".
Narrative does not flow well.
Too much detail that fails to amplify a point. Much of the detail should have been left in the Appendices, it makes the narative turgid, and boring, the key elements of the "struggle" are masked.
Poor character development.
Probably of interest to the professional historian but the "going" is too heavy for the interested amateur.
Lousy editing, - perhaps the abridged version would have been "lighter".
Share your thoughts with other customers
Create your own review
Create your own review
Labunski details the period from the writing of the Constitution to its ultimate acceptance from a group of states that had yet to feel any real national cohesiveness. As such, when it was sent to the various states for ratification, there was a great deal of concern that too much power would be vested at the national level, leaving the states and all individuals open to potential despotic governance. Specifically a Bill of Rights was envisioned and discussed but ultimately tabled at the Constitutional Convention.
The author methodically walks through the process needed for ratification in Virginia, a key state - from a population, political and economic standpoint. In essence, regardless of the three quarters rule, Virginia's acceptance was needed. James Madison, a Federalist, was up against a formidable opposition with both the Anti-Federalists along with those who favored ratification with a Bill of Rights, as a sine que non. Madison squared off against his long time friend, James Monroe and in what was to be a key election to the First Congress (after losing a Senate election). Two future Presidents going toe to toe on the issue of the day, the need, or lack therof, for a Bill of Rights which could muddy the waters of other states accepting and ratifying this unifying document that could alter history. It is hard to comprehend in today's world that two men of their standing would run against one another for a "simple" House seat. But it was critical and they both accepted the burden.
Madison wrote (in a spirit that today's politicians should have to read) "It was my misfortune to be thrown into a contest with our friend, Col Monroe . . . Between ourselves, I have no reason to doubt that the distinction was duly kept in the mind between political and personal views, and that it has saved our friendship from the smallest diminution". Madison was in favor of ratification and, over time, became convinced that a Bill of Rights should be incorporated into the document. Monroe, on the other hand, had strong reservations about a Constitution (even though the Articles of Confederation were largely failing) but certainly only would vote for its acceptance with the rights written in from its inception.
Labunski writes and wonders how different things would have been had Madison not been able to hold together the First Congress in debate of the Bill of Rights. He puts them well into an historical context and writes quite well on the various opinions and politics driving the debate. There is very little to not enjoy about this book. It is a fascinating read about a truly remarkable time in our history. One can only imagine what our nation would be like if the Framers hadn't intimately written the first ten amendments that are, too often, taken for granted today.