Novus Ordo Seclorum: The Intellectual Origins of the Constitution

This book is actually the third of a sort of trilogy, begun with "We the People..." in 1958. It should be no surprise that Mc Donald thinks little of Charles Beard. In his earlier work (mentioned above) he did a great deal to discredit Beard's thesis that the founders created the Constitution in order to increase the values of the gov't securities that they held. He followed this in 1965 with "E Pluribus Unum", a work about the political wheeling and dealing that was behind the creation of, and opposition to, the Constitution. He turned his attention to the ideas that were important to the framers in "Novus Ordo Seclorum" in order to finish his career-spanning look at the basis of our government. I my view, the best thing about this book is the way that it is systematically put together. McDonald states the problem clearly early on, and then proceeds to analyze it step-by-step. His placing of the framing of the Constitution in its broader English context is outstanding, as is his discussion of the political and economic theory that the founders had available. But McDonald also makes it abundantly clear that the framers were no ivory tower theoreticians. They were pragmatic, hardnosed political realists who had a good grounding in the best available theory of their day. That combination of theoretical grounding and practical experience has always seemed to me to be the reason that the Constitution was so well crafted and enduring, and McDonald brings that out quite clearly. On another note, McDonald was characterized above as a "conservative historian". It is true that he has supported conservative causes and taken conservative stances throughout his career, but that seems to be beside the point here. McDonald was writing in an attempt to gain understanding about the framing of the Constitution, not to influence current political debate. To often today we look to the founders to resolve our current controversies. As a result people on both sides of the political spectrum have politicized our history in a way that I think leads to an impoverishment of understanding. I admire McDonald for trying to keep the scholarly ideal of detatchment in view, and doing the best he could to live up to it.

I picked up this book to read for several reasons. The American founding era is one of my favorite periods of history to study. I am in awe of our founding father's abilities to cobble a government together despite their socio-economic differences. Don't we all wish that our political leaders today had the same capability to compromise and act on important issues of the day? I am also a great student of finding out the kinds of books our founders read so that I can read them myself. As a student of philosophy, I enjoy studying the philosophical influences on the founders. Aristotle's "good life", Locke's principles of life, liberty, and property in his "Second Treatise", and the influence of the Scottish Enlightenment philosophers like Hume, Reid, and Kames. I can say unequivocally that Forrest McDonald's book does not disappoint. One fact that I learned was that Alexander Hamilton, while fighting the revolution, was already studying what type of government to put together. He foresees the nub of the problem, "extreme jealousy of power" of men from different socio-economic factions. Hamilton and other leaders will draw on their beliefs in "natural law", civil rights, and property rights. McDonald, astutely points out that the framers of the constitution were well versed in Greco-Roman history, confederations of European nations and republics from history. They used these historical references to support their arguments during the proceedings of the convention, sometimes delivering long lectures on the subject. McDonald also deftly points out that our founders and Americans in general had a long history of being involved in government and politics for several years before the revolution. It is the collapse of public credit that is the main cause of the failure of the Articles of Confederation, and brings these men together for the constitutional convention. They had a long time to study and to put into practice many of their ideas in the colonies. Our founders learn their republican theories from reading Cicero, Livy, Tacitus, Aristotle, Polybius, Machiavelli, Montesquieu, and most notably Plutarch, who was more widely read than any other ancient author was. Hamilton, Madison, and Jay using pseudonyms from Plutarch's "Lives of the Ancient Grecians and Romans" sign the "Federalist Papers". I give you this long list so that you too can start your great scholastic journey by reading these luminaries! The founders are also greatly influenced by Joseph Addison's play "Cato: a Tragedy". The play takes place during Cato's final hours of resistance to Caesar. George Washington remarked it was his favorite play and had it performed for his men in Valley Forge during the revolution. Washington and the other founders found in the play a powerful statement on patriotism, liberty, virtue, and honor. I can go on forever about McDonald's erudite facts in this book, but I will not you need to read it! McDonald is an excellent easy to r

I bought this book based on the favorable reviews below and I was not disappointed. Specifically, I was interested in understanding the original intent(s) of the authors of the US Constitution in hopes of getting a historical context in which to locate contemporary debate regarding methods for interpreting the Constitution. This book gave me much, much more, and in engrossing and elegant prose to boot. McDonald is erudite and his knowledge has both breadth and depth. As reviewer Nisala A. Rodrigo pointed out, reading McDonald requires some work due to the level of sophistication he uses to explore the 18th century intellectual context. However, I found this text to be a useful and not overwhelming introduction to constitutional history. This is the first book I've read on the origins of the Constitution and I felt I comprehended the bulk of what McDonald was discussing. As Rodrigo suggested, the chapter on the actual making of the Constitution was a bit tedious. However, McDonald was tremendously helpful in providing a sense of the mental horizons and preoccupations of the founding fathers. For instance, I came away with the impression that the founding fathers did not have strong opinions about how original intent should be factored into future decisions involving the interpretation of the Constitution. The founding fathers were focused on substantive issues and the nitty-gritty compromises necessary to get the document ratified rather than worried by questions of hermeneutical methodologies. In fact, I believe McDonald suggests that a question regarding the appropriate role that original intent plays in judicial decisions would not have even been available to the founding fathers given that such issues did not exist at the time of ratification. This insight really helped me to see a bit of irony in contemporary debate regarding original intent - namely that questions of 'original intent' may not have been among the original intentions of the founding fathers. On a broader scope, I found the first four chapters (pp. 1-142) the most interesting. McDonald sketches the development of political, economic and legal thought in the 17th and 18th centuries in Britain and America. Although he uses some technical jargon he is careful to provide clear definitions so that non-specialists can understand his scholarship. His explanation of the views of Hume, Smith, Steuart and Mandeville regarding laissez faire and the usefulness of self-interest for achieving the public good are simply brilliant. McDonald's elucidation of the political theories of Locke, Montesquieu, Bolingbroke and Harrington, the effects that these theories had on the Constiutional milieu, and the pervasive suspicion of financial institutions and instruments helps to identify the tensions between creditors and debtors, between speculators in land and in securities, between agrarians and bankers, and, in England, between Crown and country. And understanding the competing interests brings

Novus Ordo Seclorum was the book I used to teach the Constitution to international students for a US History course. I was amazed by McDonald's intense research and his comprehensive treatment on the topic. Actually he only spends the second half the book dealing with the Constitution and the Philadelphia Convention. In the first four chapters he describes the long tradition of the English constitution, as well as the prevailing ideals in republicanism and the English Opposition which had an impact later in Philadelphia. I especially liked how McDonald debunked some American myths, such as the belief that James Madison was the "father" of the US Constitution, or that Alexander Hamilton was a champion of the free market and laissez-faire economics. IMHO, the most interesting part of the book was Chapter 7 on the Convention itself. The reader may be astonished to find that there wasn't really a dominant voice or movement which created the Constitution that Americans have revered for 200 years. Throughout the Convention there were competing voices and interests, many long speeches and appeals which ultimately produced nothing, and a helluva lot of compromise. If you think just reading this chapter is tedious, you can only imagine the actual proceedings. James Madison wasn't kidding when he said that the document was "the work of many heads and many hands." It is interesting to note that even though McDonald spends half the book describing the British theories which came to America and influenced the Framers, he acknowledges that the final outcome of the Constitution and its structure had less to do with these theories than "common sense" and the Framers' prevailing interests (p. 262). One could applaud McDonald for being thorough; however this revelation somewhat diminishes the relevance of the material in the first half of the book. As a lecturer, I found this book to be a wonderful resource, and it definitely increased my own insight into the theories behind the document. However, the content was a bit too advanced for my undergraduate students, so I just made the last 4 chapters mandatory reading. The book would probably be best suited for an upper-division or graduate-level course.

Just what sorts of ideas were going on in the Framers' minds when the drafted the federal constitution? This book provides great insight into the ideas, concepts and intellectual history and framework that the Framers were operating upon. An extremely capable historian and writer, McDonald starts out by noting some important considerations facing the Framers: protecting the life, liberty and property of citizens; their commitment to republican government (although there was disagreement and uncertainty as to what that precisely meant); history (in the sense of convention, legacy and their place in its continuing flow); and political theory. The chapter on the Rights of Englishmen begins with the Framers understandings of freedom, liberty, and property-as inherited through English common law, refined by Blackstone, and developed independently in the New World. Blackstone considered property a third "absolute right," following life and liberty. Of course, he used the word property in the more narrow sense of dominion (rather than the sense of proper as something proper or particular to an individual person). In any case, McDonald discusses Blackstone's qualifications and exceptions to this absolute right, which allowed for the regulation of property (through sumptuary laws, eminent domain, taxation, and the granting of monopoly privileges). McDonald then relates America's experience in light of the English understandings and tradition. The emphasis on property is particular important because, until the Revolution, Americans' general views about liberty were grounded in the same kinds of historical, philosophical and legal foundations as their views of property. McDonald's chapter on political theory is particularly enjoyable, as he traces the tensions existing amongst the different theories of rights held by the Framers, as well as some of their respective implications. He discusses the appeals made by Americans to natural law as transcending the general norms of English law. A succinct discussion of John Locke's natural law views, which McDonald insists has been "astonishingly misinterpreted." McDonald then proceeds to an interesting comparison and contrast of the two predominant strands of republicanism in America: puritan and agrarian. He proceeds to analyze the "country party" oppositionists as a third influential group and delves into Montesquieu. Many readers will be struck with the differences McDonald describes between the notion of "separation of powers" and a system of "checks and balances"-since most people today describe them as one in the same. Also interesting is the political economy chapter. McDonald has written more extensively on this subject elsewhere, and it is also the subject of much attention in his stellar biography of Alexander Hamilton. Indeed, the latter part of the chapter is devoted to Hamilton's sophisticated ideas about commerce and finance. The earlier part of the chapter discusses the influence of