Book Review: The Summer of 1787

Book Reviews, Cory Truax, Founding Fathers

Stewart, David O. The Summer of 1787: The Men Who Invented the Constitution. New York: Simon &Schuster, 2007. pg. 264.

David Stewart’s new popular history tome, The Summer of 1787, provides history enthusiasts with a new, compelling and well-documented source of information on one of the country’s and the world’s most momentous summers. Stewart, a Constitutional attorney, brought both his expertise on the Constitution itself and his aptitude for story telling to the composition of his book. The book comprehensively explores and introduces both the integral and marginal characters involved with drafting America’s Constitution as well as taking the reader into Freedom Hall to witness the most contentious and critical debates. One unique facet of this work is that Stewart provided more background on what events prompted the founders to call a Constitutional Convention. His inclusion of the Shays Rebellion and reports on the deficiencies of the Confederation government illustrate to the audience just how important the work of Convention was.

Readers of The Summer of 1787 will find that Stewart does a magnificent job of turning what could have been the tedious recitation of James Madison’s notes on the Convention into a riveting tale of human interest. The narrative nature balanced with the meticulous—but peculiar—documentation of the book makes it an enjoyable read to both amateur historians and academic experts alike. Moreover, the value of the subject matter cannot be overstated. Many historical commentators call 1776 the birth year of the country. If that is true, then the Constitutional Convention was the accelerated process of rearing that child birthed with the drafting of the Declaration of Independence. Therefore, with the audience’s scope and topic’s magnitude, Stewart served the American people well by writing The Summer of 1787.

The book is seemingly organized chronologically, even including dates as the headings in chapters. But a more thorough look into the content will reveal a more topical approach to the subject matter. Stewart emphasizes only one element of the Convention’s work at a time. The components of the Constitution Stewart accentuated most were the method of representation, how to count slaves in the census, the structure of the legislative branch, and the framework of the executive branch. For any student interested in the original intent and thoughts of the founders on those topics, the book is a useful tool filled with copious information on the reasoning behind the final product. Furthermore, Stewart organized the debate topics in a manner he could use to introduce the characters of the convention. When a delegate became significant to the Convention, Stewart made him significant to the book by providing an enlightening but concise biography of him.

As previously asserted, the material in the book is valuable to historical studies of the Convention. One of the more overlooked qualities of that material is his differentiation between the Constitutional Convention and the Confederation Congress. Both political pundits and amateur history buffs often get the acts and members of the two confused. Stewart’s clear transitioning from the monumental work being accomplished in Philadelphia to the deliberations in New York aids readers in rectifying common misunderstandings about one or both bodies.

Another beneficial component to the book is the subject Stewart addressed in his subtitle: The Men Who Invented the Constitution. From the prominent Virginians like George Washington and James Madison to more obscure founders such as Elbridge Gerry and John Rutledge, Stewart offers a helpful overview of each character. Taking this particular approach betrays somewhat Stewart’s legal discipline over his historical one. Because the most contentious debate in the Constitutional law community revolves around the question of interpreting the Constitution with original intent or as a “living document”, Stewart’s analysis of the Founder’s lives may serve a legal purpose. Nevertheless, Stewart still addresses the founder’s stories with professional objectivism.

Along the same vein, The Summer of 1787 does the worthy work of restoring seemingly marginal names on the Constitution to prominence by including their invaluable contributions to the process. For example, few people outside of South Carolina historical communities know just how essential John Rutledge was to drafting the Constitution. Of course, whether Rutledge’s aggressive presence was for better or worse can be debated. His importance to the story, however, cannot be denied, especially after reading Stewart’s book.

Equally, George Mason and Elbridge Gerry receive far less attention from history books than due. Whereas Mason has been largely forgotten and Gerry’s name is more associated with drawing district lines, Stewart likely helped redefine their legacies by including their stories. Using men such as Rutledge, Mason and Gerry helps to break the preconceived notions that many lay readers bring concerning the Constitutional Convention. Among those misconceptions that Stewart helps to redefine are that James Madison was the undisputed “Father of the Constitution” and that the work of the Convention was almost serendipitous in nature. Indeed, Stewart paints a much more realistic picture: real, flawed men with self- and state-interests debating and designing a imperfect document.

Along with bringing to light to the temperament of the Convention and personalities of the men, Stewart incorporates debates on the some of the Constitution’s more puzzling features. For example, modern Americans consider the “three-fifths” clause in the Constitution to be inexplicable. Stewart’s rendering of that debate demonstrates just how hard that decision was. Certainly, that one issue almost brought the Convention to failure. Without using a blanket accusation of racism, though, Stewart explains the economic interests expressed by the Southern states and the moral objections of many members. The account of the ensuing compromises on all slavery-related issues is an intriguing one to say the least.

Stewart also includes the Founders’ debates and thoughts on the Electoral College system—one part of the Constitution many modern Americans find convoluted. But once again, Stewart explains the divulging interests of the delegates and makes more understandable the final result. On this particular issue, howbeit, Stewart may have allowed a bit of his own personal bias to surface.

Since the 2000 Presidential election wherein then-Governor George Bush defeated Vice-President Al Gore, many Gore-supporters and likeminded people have expressed a desire to change the Electoral College system. Gore actually won about 1 million more votes in 2000, but Bush succeeded with more Electoral College votes. Stewart, who defended President Bill Clinton in his impeachment trial, also writes an appendix at the end of the book in a more openly argumentative style against the Electoral College. This one point of contention by no means indicts the product as a whole; nevertheless, it is a symbol of some of Stewart’s likely bias.

While Stewart may have made a political point concerning the Electoral College, he skillfully navigated another potentially divisive subject: religion. Some Providential School historians like to portray the founding fathers as overtly religious characters. Still, other non-parochial historians insist the founders were strictly secular. As with most questions, the truth is more likely somewhere in the middle. And Stewart treats the subject as such.

Many religious history figures emphasize the lore of Benjamin Franklin calling for prayer at the Constitutional Convention. And of course, the secularists minimize the story or leave it out altogether. Stewart, however, includes the story but does so in passing. He also allows some parochial language in his quotes such as “Almighty Hand” and “Providence” where others censor it. This compromise should satisfy both sides of the religious/secular dichotomy. One point of conflict does emerge in the text concerning religion, though. Stewart quotes the Northwest Ordinance on page 135 writing, “the means of education shall forever be encouraged.” A conspiratorial reader may charge that Stewart deliberately omitted the introductory phrase in that clause. As a whole, that section of the law reads:

“Religion, morality and knowledge, being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged.”

Leaving out the “religion” and “morality” qualifiers may upset some religiously astute readers, but Stewart’s excuse is likely that including them would be superfluous to the subject matter. Indeed, including the religious language would not have been pertinent to the context. Nevertheless, some may find an anti-religious bias in that depiction of the Northwest Ordinance. In any event, Stewart surely did his best at balancing religion and secularism in the story, and in most people’s estimations, probably succeeded.

But for all of its inclusions and exclusions, biases and fair treatments, The Summer of 1787 is a valuable source for historians of any level. Stewart did an erudite job of collecting scholarly information and compacting it into a useful, narrative popular history. Surely, his work will be a resource for students of the Constitution for years to come.

Please Share This Story!

Cory Truax @ February 26, 2008