Unruly Americans and the Origins of the Constitution

by Woody Holton

Book Overview

Average Americans Were the True Framers of the Constitution

Woody Holton upends what we think we know of the Constitution's origins by telling the history of the average Americans who challenged the framers of the Constitution and forced on them the revisions that produced the document we now venerate. The framers who gathered in Philadelphia in 1787 were determined to reverse America's post-Revolutionary War slide into democracy...

• Format: Paperback
• Language: English
• ISBN: 0809016435
• ISBN13: 9780809016433
• Release Date: October 2008
• Publisher: Hill & Wang
• Length: 384 Pages
• Weight: 0.94 lbs.
• Dimensions: 1.0" x 5.5" x 8.2"

Customer Reviews

High recommended alternate take on the origins of the US constitution

The general story told in school - original US articles of confederation weak, needed to form a strong national government, Constitution created. Everyone happy. Rah rah rah. As in most stories like this, the actual tale of the formation of a new government is trickier, with multiple factions and views involved. Most of the US constitution issues involves debt structures and taxation, which are complex issues, particularly since 18th century finance was a little different than current issues. The author takes on communicating this complex task admirably. His thesis, that the constitution ended up a balance of the defense of elitist economic interests and individual rights for all, particularly with the insistence of the addition of the bill of rights. The overall tone of the book, though with a alternate version of history, is surprisingly not harsh, rather breezy, and sometimes amusing. I highly recommend this book along with more traditional texts regarding the creation of the US constitution.

A Friendlier Version of Charles Beard's and Howard Zinn's rendition

This history, told mostly from the vantage point of the average colonial American, rather than from the traditional vantage point of the landed gentry, has a lot to offer in untwisting the mythology of how our Constitution came about. It is basically a story about the chaos that ensued when all the contending forces -- from the grassroots upwards are thrown into the mix; and all side's views and interests are taken into account. What ensued in 1787 was not a pretty picture. That the author was able to capture this unruliness is a tribute to his skill, and in the end is a much fuller, much more honest and thus a more believable history than the sugarcoated version we have come to accept and revere as the true national story. Woody Holton is not the first, the only, nor will he be the last historian to note that our founding fathers were an aristocratic and very much anti-democratic bunch, who were as careful and skillful at protecting their own economic interests as they were concerned about shaping a "people's democracy" through the details of the Constitution. And while this book does not go so far as to suggest that the overlapping interests of the landed gentry amounted to a silent reactionary conspiracy, as Charles Beard does in his "An Economic Interpretation of the U.S. Constitution," or as Howard Zinn leaves hanging in the air in his "A People's History of the United States," it does leave plenty of room for the careful reader to draw his own speculative conclusions. The crux of the matter (and of the book) is that due to the rebellious attitudes and actions of the average colonial citizen, the framers (representing the interests mostly of the landed gentry) were worried about the post-revolutionary slide into "a real people's democracy." Without the heavy-handed intervention of the framers, the average colonial Joe-blow would have exercised an even greater influence over state and national policies than that granted them by the compromises that eventually ended in the Constitution that we now have. Whether the alternative would have been better than what we have, is arguable. Correctly, Holton makes these average colonial citizens, the real "unsung heroes" of the Constitution, as it was their tenacity and forbearance, their refusal to be dictated to and looked down upon, their agitation in the streets as often as necessary to defend what they viewed as their inherent rights and interests that led to the Constitution we now have. Shay's rebellion is just the most "written about" of the many rebellions that took place during those very hectic times. As one would expect, most of the debate, and the subtext of the competing interests, were shrouded in economic complexity, arcania and details of that era. For it is at this level that the democracy we have come to enjoy really gets played out. Altogether, Horton's rendition makes us better understand why we are still caught up in the same time warp, with the moneyed interests still exerc

A Fine Revisionist Perspective on the Adoption of the Constitution, Especially Helpful in Coming to

The nature of the Constitution, as well as the intention of its framers, has long been debated by historians. "Unruly Americans and the Origins of the Constitution" offers an interesting and instructive new perspective on this debate by suggesting that what emerged from the Constitutional convention and its ratification was especially democratic not so much because of the majority of the efforts of the framers themselves--although they did believe in basic democratic principles--but because of opponents to the Constitution who worked hard for concessions and protections that have been critical to the effective functioning of the nation since that time. In essence, author Woody Holton, professor of history at the University of Richmond, asserts that critical cadre of such advocates was a part of the convention in Philadelphia drafting the Constitution but even more emerged in the various states during the ratification debates. The author makes a compelling case for the success of these individuals in juggling a variety of competing interests while constructing a bulwark that would preserve personal liberty. It was these "unruly Americans," in the author's phraseology, which ensured individual rights. He analyzes and celebrates the actions of these people to rise up and take action when those in powerful positions would seek to curtail liberty. This book, of course, is very much a work of its time and place. The author's juxtaposition of political perspectives and their conflict over a cornerstone of democratic principles--individual rights and liberty--offers an analogy for our own day and the efforts to curtail civil liberties in the aftermath of 9/11.

Best in 40 Years

Hands down, one of the most important books written on the origins of the U.S. Constitution in 40 years. Deeply researched in original sources, clearly written, and impartial--perhaps too much so. This is true history. A powerful corrective to a field too often populated with overly one-sided patriotic works--well-meaning books but ones that rely too heavily on the rhetoric of the winning side. Holton lets us see the forces at work and in conflict across and between classes of Americans--taxpayers, farmers, bondholders, etc. He shows us how the common American's view of the revolution and the economic crisis that followed independence differed from that of the new American elite and how that differing perspective shaped our Constitution. Farley Grubb, Professor of Economics, University of Delaware

Excellent demythologizing of Philadelphia 1787

This is an excellent, well-needed revisionist history of the creation of the Constitution. While author Woody Holton doesn't go as far as Charles Beard in 1913 and call the Founding Fathers "economic royalists," he does clearly state (and demonstrate with plenty of evidence) that economic issues, and for one class of people, were probably the ultimately concern that led to the Constitutional Convention. You've maybe heard of Shays' Rebellion in 1786 Massachusetts? Just one of many, many actions in most colonies at the local and regional level. States jacked taxes so high they were four times as high, per capita, as at Revolution 1775. And, most states' legislatures wouldn't print enough cheap paper money to appease farmers and other debtors, who, if not actually marching on state capitals, worked overtime to prevent sheriff's and county courts from selling off properties at debtors' auctions. In other words, Holton presents the 1780s as William Jennings Bryan's 1896 America writ even larger. And, the Federalist founders as anti-Democrats worried about a debtors' revolt. Time after time, Holton states the founders saw Article I, Section 10, which prevents states from printing paper money, as a keystone of the new constitution. As far as mechanisms of government, he re-presents words of numerous Founders indicating their fear of true democracy, in part because they were worried debtors would continue to press governments for cheap money. That's why they cut the actual number of members in the first House in half, to 65, from Madison's original proposal of 130. They thought that the well-to-do could better control politics the larger the population represented by each Congressman. That's also why they didn't mandate single-member districts (read the Constitution, it's not in there), allowing statewide elections. "Insure democratic tranquility"? Against mob action. "Promote justice"? Against debtors wanting cheap money. And, contrary to Publishers' Weekly, Holton does NOT call the Constitution a "democratic document." Page 273: "The Framers designed the Federal government to be much less accessible than it seems."