From Publishers Weekly
Starred Review. Is the Constitution a democratic document? Yes, says University of Richmond historian Holton (
Forced Founders), but not because the men who wrote it were especially democratically inclined. The framers, Holton says, distrusted the middling farmers who made up much of America's voting population, and believed governance should be left in large part to the elites. But the framers also knew that if the document they drafted did not address ordinary citizens' concerns, the states would not ratify it. Thus, the framers created a more radical document—an underdogs' Constitution, Holton calls it—than they otherwise would have done. Holton's book, which may be the most suggestive study of the politics of the Constitution and the early republic since Drew McCoy's 1980
The Elusive Republic, is full of surprising insights; for example, his discussion of newspaper writers' defense of a woman's right to purchase the occasional luxury item flies in the face of much scholarship on virtue, gender and fashion in postrevolutionary America. Holton concludes with an inspiring rallying cry for democracy, saying that Americans today seem to have abandoned ordinary late-18th-century citizens' intens[e]... democratic aspiration, resigned, he says, to the power of global corporations and of wealth in American politics.
(Oct.) Copyright © Reed Business Information, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
-- Dieser Text bezieht sich auf eine andere Ausgabe:
Gebundene Ausgabe
.
The motivation of the framers of our constitution is a constant and often hotly debated topic among historians. At one extreme are those who see the framers as brilliant, democratic politicians who did a masterful job of juggling competing interests while remaining true to the ideal of personal liberty. At the other extreme are the economic determinists who view the founders as members of the privileged classes, insistent upon protecting their interests from the encroachments of the masses. Holton certainly would be most comfortable in the latter camp, but his arguments here are free of dogmatism, and he offers some interesting twists on old assertions. He maintains that the delegates to the convention were attempting to limit the democratic tendencies of the individual state legislatures by curbing their powers to issue paper money and offer relief to debtors. Faced with vehement popular opposition to ratification, the Bill of Rights, Holton claims, was promised only to tip the balance in favor of ratification. Although he makes a credible case that some delegates feared the dangers of democracy, he glosses over the commitment many showed to protecting personal freedom as their top priority. Freeman, Jay
-- Dieser Text bezieht sich auf eine andere Ausgabe:
Gebundene Ausgabe
.
