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.
Cindy,
ReplyDeleteI'm glad you seem to both have enjoyed Berkin and gathered a lot of new information. I appreciated both your posts for your ability to summarize and analyze!
One thing to think about is that Berkin is creating an interpretation when she selects which primary sources to quote. Without going to the source, we don't know what Sherman's following sentence is - Berkin has selected his quote about the Vice Presidency to lead us to think about Sherman's opinion in a certain way. Therefore, there is always bias, no matter what someone claims!
It doesn't seem like much has changed in 225 years, in terms of partisanship and wrangling. With changes in media, however, I think it would have been impossible to keep the Constitutional Convention's conversations secret today. By meeting as a Committee of the Whole, they could have those discussions which evaluated pros and cons without having to speak in sound bites!