July-August . . . Berkin's use of primary sources

My initial reaction in reading any historical text is in response to the amount of time the author spends researching, reading, sorting, and sifting through materials. I cannot imagine the time and energy it takes to research and write an historical text. One must truly love what they are doing or love what they are writing about in order to complete such a task!

I appreciate Berkin's use of primary sources (letters, journals etc.) that not only documented the proceedings of the convention but provides the reader with interesting insights into the personalities and perspectives of the participants. Of course, much of this would have been lost to all historians without the meticulous notes of James Madison. The fact that these proceedings were 'secret' and not public knowledge also supports the accuracy of the first-hand reports. Berkin used documents written by the delegates themselves to help present an unbiased view of what actually happened leaving her readers to form their own opinions about the events and people involved .  

'A Brilliant Solution' not only describes in concise detail the drafting of the Constitution but also sheds light on the men involved in its design. By using primary sources Berkin is able to paint interesting portraits of the participants.  For example Eldridge Gerry is physically described as being "small and thin . . . a squint in his eye . . . slight stutter . . . long nose . . . dissatisfied look" and yet, he has a "reputation as a ladies' man" (pg 54) . . . doesn't sound much like a 'Brad Pitt' to me!  Berkin also uses primary sources to reveal the delegates' viewpoints and attitudes. For instance, when Roger Sherman states "If the vice-President were not to be President of the Senate, he would be without employment . . ." (pg 147), Berkin's use of this quote enables the reader to infer what Sherman personally thinks of that office.

A talented author is able to use primary sources in such a way that the reader is both informed and engaged in the text. I feel Carol Berkin was on target in both areas.

July-August . . . writing the Constitution

As I read "A Brilliant Solution," I was struck by two things. First, I knew there were many opinions and disagreements among the delegates of the Constitutional Convention however, I had no idea just how extreme those ideas and opposing viewpoints were.  And second, I was amazed and impressed at the tenacity and determination of the Founding Fathers to 'see the job through' given the discord and conditions under which they worked. This text has given me a whole new appreciation and perspective on the Constitution, on the people who worked so diligently to draft the document, and the fact that it has provided this nation with a framework of government that continues to withstand tests and trials. 

There was much in the book that was new information for me. I did not realize there were so many different plans presented to the delegates (i.e. the Virginia Plan, New Jersey Plan, Connecticut Compromise) each with their own strengths and weaknesses. With each new proposal came a new round of discussions, disagreements, tantrums and compromises. In the end, with egos and personal agendas set aside, the delegates combined the best of each plan to create the checks and balance framework we know today. To say their achievement is nothing short of 'brilliant' is a gross understatement. While it may not be the most perfect form of government, it certainly strives to be 'the best for the many.'

It is also interesting that while some things change, some things remain the same. As I was discussing the book with my son, I commented on the intense arguments and extreme viewpoints of the delegates. His response, "You know Mom, people think the government is failing because of all the partisan fighting, but nothing has really changed.  Look what those early delegates went through and fought about then look at what goes on today . . . it's the same today as back then." I have to agree with Dirk's response and in my opinion that is the beauty of our Constitution. Forgive my analogy but our Constitution  reminds me of a building designed to withstand earthquakes. The core and framework must be strong enough to support the integrity of the structure and yet, it must also be flexible with just enough 'give' that it does not collapse in adversity. I think as citizens, we are pretty fortunate to live with such a foundation!