Notes of Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787

~Notes of Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787 Reported by James Madison~ is an insightful chronicle of the proceedings of the Philadelphia Convention. There is no denying the immense historical value of Madison's notes from the Convention to draft the Constitution. It's an excellent study tool to understand the framing of the United States Constitution, and follow the debates and see how the document was shaped and who influenced it. As a matter of fact, Madison offered a salient defense of the compact nature of the Union, as opposed to the nationalist theory of Joseph Story and Daniel Webster. Among the other note-takers at the Convention (e.g. Robert Yates), James Madison offered the most thorough exposition of the proceedings. He apparently nearly wore his hand ragged transcribing all of this stuff in such detail, but he had an intuitive sense that they were really making history in 1787. The problem I have with modern constitutional historiography is that it does accurately portray the purpose of the Convention or its power and authority. As a result, the ambiguous special pleadings for ratification known as the Federalist Papers are overvalued while the subsequent state ratifying conventions are ignored and marginalized. The fact that the people of the several states never ratified Hamilton's opinions, and the fact that Hamilton had offered a plan for complete consolidation at Philadelphia only to leave that Convention early also discounts the value of his special pleading for adoption of the Constitution as the be-all and end-all summation of original intent. In Federalist #40, Madison accurately stated that the Philadelphia Convention had no authority but to draft a Constitution and its powers were "merely advisory and recommendatory." Madison also disclaimed the value of his notes and contended that we should look for original intent not in the deliberations and proceedings of the convention to draft the Constitution, but in the text itself and in the proceedings of the state ratifying conventions. Madison observed, "...the legitimate meaning of the Instrument must be derived from the text itself; or if a key is to be sought elsewhere, it must be not in the opinions or intentions of the Body which planned & proposed the Constitution, but in the sense attached to it by the people in their respective State Conventions where it received all the authority which it possesses." In point of emphasis, "all the authority which it possesses." John Taylor in the Virginia House of Delegates debates expressed a similar sentiment, noting that the proceedings of the state ratification debates "ought to be looked upon as a contemporaneous exposition... constitution." In other words, Madison's and Yate's notes are helpful, but serious students of the Constitution would gain insight on original intentions by studying the proceedings of the various state ratifying conventions as well. Thankfully, the Wisconsin Historical Society has produced the Doc

He told us exactly what happened. No editorializing. No Political correctness. Lots of detail. Pure Honesty.We get to see what the Constitution was meant to be from the point of view of the founders themselves. Before you read any popular media work on the Consitiution, Read this. You'll need to think a little, but well worth it.--George Stancliffe

This is not only fascinating reading, but is a critical primary source for understanding our Constitution. This is Madison's first hand account of the secret proceedings of the Constitutional Convention. You'll see how the debate unfolds and understand more fully the difficulty of creating a governing document for our nation. Most importantly you'll see the difficulty in divining the original intent of our founders. There were many intents and many "founders" of this important document. It is not surprising that many involved in the creation of our constitution could afterwards disagree on the substance of what different articles "meant." That is why the argument over original intent can never be resolved, and why, for better or worse, the Constitution remains open to interpretation.

Perhaps no work, outside of the Federalist Papers, is more crucial to understanding the US Constitution. Madison's Notes, drawn from those hot days at the Constitutional Convention show the building of our federalist system. From what was included, to what was rejected, to what was never proposed, Madison reveals so much.

In this period of seeming upheaval in the American government, constitutional questions are thick on the ground and the least-used clause in that document is again being exercised. We'd do well to examine what actually happened so many years ago. Familiarity with the Constitution itself is not enough--indeed, it's never enough. To borrow a page from "Star Trek," we should know the thoughts of those 55 men as well if we are to truly understand what they intended for the United States."Notes on Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787" is the perfect source for beginning that exploration. If you want the information and the arguments advanced for each section of the Constitution, here they are. This volume is the actual journal of the Constitutional Convention, kept by James Madison (later the 4th President under that document). Preserved after the convention approved their work, it was later published. It still exists as an excellent source of political thought from the age of the Enlightenment; though the Declaration of Independence is more of a proof of those philosophies (based on the contract theory of David Hume), the Constitution was also influenced by these ideas, and represents a distillation of 18th-Century political theory.It's not an easy read; it is, after all, a product of its time, written in a dense style, with antique language and grammar (to 20th century minds), by one of the best educated men in the Colonies. But even a leaping study of the highlights, the famous debates over the plans for how to establish the Congress, etc., repay the reader. Just an examination of the opening days shows that the representatives came prepared to essentially flout their instructions, throw out instead of revise the defective Articles of Confederation, and start afresh. Several members came prepared with draft proposals, and none appeared overly embarrassed to offer them. Seeing how many differences there are between the first drafts and the final Constitution is quite interesting.Highly recommended, and all encourgement to the person who chooses this book.January 27, 1999