The Summer of Law
The Power of the People to be Protected from Same

Singing: Power to the People, Power to the People, Right on!----John Lennon

 

Opening Remarks

Where should one start in discussing this most famous convention that resulted in one of the longest surviving republican democratic constitution in the world (two centuries plus)? (First kudos go to the Swiss by many years.) The Constitution of the United States of America became a model for the rest of the global community. I must add it is more complicated than one can fully explain in this venue. For understanding the cause for the assembling of some of the greatest political minds the newly Confederated United States of America produced for that steamy Philadelphia summer of 1787 one should go back further in time.

Background History

Always Something There to Remind Me

Every student in democratic societies have been taught about the roots of the peoples' speaking and voting on issues in classical Greece and Rome. They are also aware of the mob using that tool to actually bring leadership over them that turns despotic. This is the case now; and it was the same for the 18th century English-speaking scholars. They had a tradition where they enjoyed the fruits of legal liberties contracted in writing, starting with the Magna Carta of 1215. Of course early Renaissance Venice was a Republic, and eventually England became a Constitutional Monarchy, answering to Parliament. But the Reformation and the Civil War and Cromwell had additional effects on people's views of managing their destiny, as Kenneth Scott Latourette aptly put it:

When carried to its logical conclusion, Protestantism made for democracy. Its basic principles, salvation by faith and the priesthood of all believers, issued in governments in which each citizen had a voice and possessed rights and responsibilities equal with those of all his fellows. The majority of Protestants did not go as far as this. Most Lutheran states were monarchies. The Reformed Churches moved further towards democracy. Calvin disliked monarchies, but held that if God ordains governments we must obey them. He was not an egalitarian or a leveler. He taught liberty and fraternity but not equality. he shrunk from revolution and desired an elective aristocracy. Yet under his leadership Geneva became a firmly established republic. The organization of the Reformed Churches had in it much of democracy. That was especially true of the Presbyterians. Still more democratic were the "gathered" churches, including the independents, the Baptists, and the Quakers. The seventeenth century struggle in England in which Puritanism and the Independents were prominent and even more radical groups had a voice, contributed immeasurably to the democratic trend in the government of that country.1

 

But perhaps more importantly, the writings of John Locke, Edmund Burke, John Stuart Mill and Montesquieu, foundations of 'classical liberalism' (albeit Mill's was Utilitarian) became a catalytic base for more demands for liberty. When these ideas combined with the independent and industrious spirit of the Puritans, Presbyterians, Quakers and Baptists and was tempered with Enlightenment and Arminian values, along with the economic theories of Scotsman Adam Smith adding to this collage --the American Colonists were being prepared for something bigger on the horizon.

Sometimes I Feel Like a Motherless Child

The interruption of strong direct political involvement during the Cromwell years allowed the colonial congresses to assume increasing local control, and it was not until the end of the French and Indian Wars or Seven Year's War that the reigning in of the prosperous and growing American Colonies needed tightening. The baker's dozen semi-sovereign entities had grown from a population of around quarter of a million souls in 1700 to approximately two million sixty years later.

Bad boys, Bad boys, What You Gonna do when They Come for You.

There was a growing conflict between the commercial protectionism of Britain and the increasing variety of productivity developed by predominantly non-aristocratic classed entrepreneurs. Note the Parliament's commercially minded bills like the Iron Act, (of which Franklin wrote "A wise and good mother will not do it.") the Sugar Act, and the Stamp Act as means to that end. The latter was needed to pay the bill for the Seven Year's War. But we can look at this from the view of seeing the results of 'spoiling' the kid as seen by Lawrence Henry Gipson's look at the 18th Century Great Britain:

As tokens of their common sense of security and freedom from fear, the inhabitants of the Empire in 1763 could point to the fact that they were protected not only by a victorious army but, what was of greater assurance, by the most powerful fleet that had ever sailed the seas. Their merchant marine was also vastly larger than that of any other nation, and in its bottoms they exported to foreign ports a greater surplus of cereals and meat products than was exported by all the rest of the world combined, obtaining in return a bewildering variety of commodities to add to the satisfaction of life. ...King George III's subjects enjoyed an enviable standard of living: they were, by and large, better fed, better clothed, better sheltered, better rewarded for their efforts, than any other people with the possible exception of the Dutch. This was particularly true of those freemen dwelling in the American colonies. {emphasis mine}2

 

I May be Wrong but I May be Right

Much has been written about the almost schizophrenic mindset incongruously held by Americans. Psychoanalyzing the variety of Christians: we note the Puritans, who abhorred scholasticism, yet established Harvard and Yale; and Quakers who avoided the pretense of gathering luxury, yet filled estate homes with fine furnishings; the Presbyterians too, saw Providence in action, yet elevated reason above superstition; and in the south, there were those who decried the Mother country's restrictions while they kept slaves. These wild and wide variations of philosophies had to find some mutual ground amongst the cognitive dissonance, which also included merchants versus agrarian landowners, strong men of orthodox faith compared to radicals like Thomas Paine, or liberals like Thomas Jefferson, and, of course abolitionists opposing those who traded in flesh. In this mish-mash were the 'Peace' religions of the Mennonites, Quakers and Dunkards, while Presbyterians and Congregationalists were militants. There was some intolerance abounding, unfortunately on the religious front, Jews and Catholics at one time were not welcome in 'soul freedom' Rhode Island. Even in Maryland where Catholics first settled, they later met laws for their exclusion. In Connecticut Deists and Unitarians could be arrested, while Baptists were not welcome in Virginia. There was also a sense of Christian community, however, fostered and promoted by men like Presbyterian John Winthrop where Justice and Mercy were paramount, selling all to give to the poor. This New Jerusalem mentality shaped the nations' psyche, maybe even unto this day. We can be thankful to the Baptist's strong insistence on the separation of Church and State, where even in Virginia Patrick Henry fought for those rights. One must not forget that Jews and Roman Catholics found refuge here taking advantage of liberty such as Pennsylvania charter's tolerance founded by Society of Friends' William Penn. (Two Roman Catholics would be represented in 1787's Convention.) More new denominations (for better or for worse) were developed in this new country than ever before from people of faith enjoying freedom. Even the Anglican Church thrived, even after a break from it's Royal ties, it became the americanized Episcopal version.

The common language, (if one excepts the German, Dutch and French speaking citizens), political culture, and basic "Classical-Christian Consciousness," as quipped by historian Page Smith, helped allow these diverse citizens find unity for liberty against perceived tyranny. They were helped also from two millennia of political and theological (and philosophical) influence culminating in a document provided at whose meeting is going to be discussed. That later world-view evolved in about a dozen years to what Smith calls the "Secular-Democratic Consciousness."3

I Feel Like Busting Loose

At first each state was zealous for their own individual sovereignty, in fact they competed with each other. Out of necessity different pan-colonial congresses were called up exampled by the Albany Plan of Union in 1754 -- drawn up by Ben Franklin for common protection against Indians (which was spurned by the self-minded colonies. There was James Otis and the Stamp Act Congress in 1765 in New York where nine colonies' representatives met. From the 1760's onward for approximately two score years England's Parliament passed various bills affecting the colonies. But the First Continental Congressof 1774 met in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania because of the Brits worsening reprisals and because of the colonies' resistance to earlier Acts. The most famous of these 'terrorist acts' was Samuel Adams and his radicals 'Indians' who in 1770 dumped tea in the Boston Harbor. Such kinds of actions and speech were met with increasingly more punitive Coercive Acts. At this time individual colonial legislatures, like the Virginia House of Burgess, were becoming even more active, whose members were gathering valuable experience from "hands on" activity while they developed novel political and philosophical ideas. The Who's Who of that time was extensive, and included Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Paine, Patrick Henry, Thomas Jefferson, John Hancock, Samuel and John Adams, James Otis, the Morrises, Benjamin Rush and John Jay. George Washington became the cream that rose to the top during the coming hostilities. These icons of nation building are almost like gods in one hand, and friends in the other-- as we call them Ben, and Sam and Tom. Some of these lovers of liberty would actually become detractors from the cause of making a stronger element of the 'united' in the United States as we shall see.

I Wish You'd Stop Being so Good to Me Boss.

The inconsistency of the British Government with its decentralized authorities while they attempted remedy was made worse by its increasing lack of diplomacy in spite of Benjamin Franklin's warnings. The delay in communications across the sea did not help matters, either. Regular Englishmen were not enthused about coming to blows over these issues, and inscriptions for His Majesty's Military were so down, that the 30,000 infamous Hessian mercenaries were contracted. The mercantilism started in the 1660's of King Charles II's era kept growing until King George III inherited it a century later, but now was considered Empire. But this "enlightened" monarch, (a benevolent despot?) more a Whig than a Tory, who for his first decade was actually friendly to the colonies ruled as Morrison and Commager relayed:

He did his best for the empire according to his lights; but his best was not good, and his lights were few and dim.

And, about his government:
 
George III's ministers were no gang of unprincipled villains, subservient to a royal tyrant, Lord Dartmouth, for instance, who sponsored the Coercive Acts, was a kind and pious gentleman, patron of Dartmouth College and the poet Cowper. But almost all were incompetent. The situation called for statesmanship of the highest order: and the political system which George III manipulated to his personal advantage put statesmanship as a discount, political following at a premium. In the end it was ignorance, confusion, and unresponsiveness to crying needs and issues, rather than corruption or deliberate ill will, which convinced the Americans that their liberties were no longer safe within the British Empire. 4

 

I See the Tire Tracks Across Your Back

As we have seen, The Intolerable Acts led to the 'extra legal' First Continental Congress in 1774 which included all the colonies save Georgia. But, moreover, following the bloodshed at Lexington, a Second Continental Congress was held, presided by John Hancock just twenty some odd days later in May 1775, at the offset of War, and on June 15th George Washington is appointed Commander-in-Chief.

Early in 1776, the colonies were informed to to write state constitutions, and Virginia's was drafted by James Madison and its Bill of Rights of June, 1776 was written by George Mason (except for Patrick Henry's 'Freedom of Religion' contribution.) Paine's Common Sense comes out in January of that year and was read by virtually all the literate throughout the colonies-- inciting the Cause. Following that, the renowned, almost sacred, Declaration of Independence was written on that most famous of American dates July 4, 1776, and though Jefferson penned the masterpiece he had borrowed some from Mason's writing. (Those German soldiers were mentioned in the Declaration of Independence as part of the case against King George.) After the Victory at Yorktown and subsequent negotiations, the Articles of Confederation, drafted by John Dickinson, ruled loosely over the newly freed nation officially in 1781. But some of the politicos, especially including James Madison, John Adams and Alexander Hamilton of New York had become increasingly leary of the weaknesses showing itself with the strong state's rights dominance over the unicameral national legislature, whose executive was a committee. John Adams and Washington corresponded with each other concerned with the inability to not only pay the debts promised in the peace Treaty of Paris in 1783, but the Continental Congress's inaction on the confusion caused by the near anarchical Shay's Rebellion. But, Jefferson from his deluxe Paris townhouse wrote his famous remarks espousing that a little revolution was necessary from time to time. Others were realizing that it was the seven year's Revolutionary War effort that had kept the assorted thirteen entities united, not the purposefully weakened Congress. But in reality, men of substance were getting nervous of another Revolution, but this time against the fledgling United States, and those same problems colonies had from England they were having from themselves: muddled lack of power where needed. Financial crisis loomed heavy, not only the debt, but as insidious was the individual state's paper money printing, demonstrated by the 'cheap money' of Rhode Island. The heady excitement of liberation, even considering how miraculously these colonials extricated themselves from the most powerful nation in the world known at that time, had passed. Another significant item was the humiliating threat of those across 'the pond' who might now mockingly say, "I told you so!" As a matter of fact Lord Sheffield successfully pushed the policy that providing exclusive shipping trade with the new nation might keep them from using competitors. He also thought that portions of the American States would come back around awed by Brittania's Naval might. The Confederation also struggled with its alliance with France, and its relationship with neighboring Canada and Colonial Spain. The honeymoon was over.

The Convention

The Calling

The concerned reformers of the day had no intention of installing pure democracy, "rule by the rabble," but preferred representational government or republicanism. In spite of the rhetoric, they were mostly interested in good conduct for business by way of law.

We are fortunate that these Patriots were men of letters, for their communications have allowed us to understand these politically evolving dynamics. This was especially true of James Madison, whose recording in minutiae of the events is invaluable, albeit not released until 1840 (six years after he died). In early 1786, Madison got Jefferson's written nod from France for a meeting with Maryland in Annapolis for addressing the 'ills of excess democracy.' Part of the motivation was Virginia and Maryland settling Potomac River boundary disputes. This was kind of a microcosmic symbol of similar disputes troubling other areas and frontiers across and beyond the seaboard. At this under-attended (five states) meeting, enough consent was bantered about concerning "a general plan of commerce and the powers relative thereto." As Destiny delighted, they made the call for another convention to be held in Philadelphia that next spring in 1787 on May 14th.

The Delegation

Opponents to the convention had a year to mobilize while state delegates were being picked. Some noted examples were Samuel Adams of Massachusetts, as well as Patrick Henry (who was an elected no show) and Richard Henry Lee of Virginia, the latter knowing of the zealous federalists warning "...others consider Congress not only the constitutional but the most eligible body to originate and propose amendments to the confederation, and others prefer state conventions for the express purpose..." This would be a harbinger of future dissents. New Hampshire's delegates were almost three months late. As a matter of fact, Rhode Island never sent delegates, and the new highly independent state of Vermont was not represented. (And it was not brought into the Union until later. Whose constitution was the only one that did not have voting limitations by property requirements.) Pierce wrote descriptions of most of the delegates, colored by his own strong opinions. Benjamin Franklin was almost only a figurehead at a gouty 82 years of age, but through the able talents of his companion, Wilson made his points known. Those were for the futile suggestion that the person holding that executive not be salaried. (Well, to this day one might consider the CEO of the strongest country in the free world is still relatively underpaid.)

It was the Thought that Counted

As brilliant and motivated as the men were, they were human, they were flawed, they had agendas. It must be stated here, that even those who wanted more direct democracy and rights for all men, like George Mason, and opposed slavery like Rufus King, John Dickinson, John Adams and Luther Martin, (those predominantly southerners, for Mammon's sake defended it), still did not promote suffrage of women. Some had to compromise their strong beliefs for obtaining this Union. And, practically all of the influential men of the time held to the property-ownership requirements of republican participation. George Mason, a slaveholder opposed it at the Convention, like, as we know, Thomas Jefferson (who did not attend because like John Adams they were abroad). What strange pressures of keeping one's standard of living and moral unrighteousness up must have been felt. That anyone could traffic in human beings (around thirty percent of the delegates) and look at themselves --perhaps powdered wig and all-- in the mirror before embarking on this majestic endeavor. But, in spite of obvious progressive shortcomings--as seen from our hind-sighted perspective-- there was a desire to establish a permanent basis for liberties and law for all citizens on a Federal level. Though these men should not be put on Mount Olympus, they should be given more respect just ascribing them as "Old, Rich, Dead, White Men." They still left a seedling framework for which more equitable freedoms to flourish in perpetuity. This, too, is observed from our modern vantage. The fact that they were of some different opinions made the document all that more flexible, yet firm in its culmination.

Those sent were, according to historian James MacGregor Burns:

...the well-bred, the well-fed, the well-read, and the well-wed. But the men of Philadelphia were neither solely defined nor wholly confined by these identities. Transcending these interests and occupations and affiliations was their sense of a compelling goal, a strategy to a achieve that goal, and a host of notions about how to make that strategy work. The delegates did not see themselves as merely landowners or merchants or lawyers. They conceived of themselves as engaged in a grand "experiment" --a word they often used --the outcome of which would shape their nation's destiny, and hence their own and their posterity's, for decades to come. They saw themselves --in a word they would never have used --as pragmatists, as men thinking their way through a thicket of problems, in pursuit of that goal.4
Indeed, this was an Epic Drama.

 

DRAMATIS PERSONAE
(# denotes non-signers)

Starring...

Certain figures stand out-- while others are not household, for sure, --as history testifies concerning that gathering. But who was to be the leading man? The consensus seems to be that it was Presbyterian Princeton trained James Madison, the one who kept the copious notes made before, during and after the event, who had this driving force within to create a state out of these United States, who was first to arrive in Philadelphia. He had devoted much reading to political philosophy, and was a lower keyed level-headed spokesman. His supporting cast was impressive: Fiesty Alexander Hamilton and larger-than-life George Washington. Although the latter, who was elected unanimously, kept the rules enforced by his imposition --the strict decorum and agreed-upon secrecy --that greeted the delegates. This idea of a Federal government was aided strongly by Hamilton, and on the wings, John Jay. These Federalists were to rise strongly to meet the adamant resistance of what came to be known as the anti-Federalists. Mr. Hamilton was well-known, but scared folks with his push for a strong central government. William Jackson was the witnessing secretary, not counted as a delegate.

Do We Agree to Disagree?

There are really no villains in this tale. Many on the outside, especially those suspicious of losing state's sovereignty at best, or lorded over by tyrants felt worse when the closed-door policy was instituted. Inside the Convention they had sympathetic minds. But, besides fear of a strong national government, there were other issues, some of which have been touched on, like slavery. As well as when abolition would take place, would they count in apportioning? Would large states have more power with representational to population voting, and conversely, would not one vote for each state (how the Federated States voted) give them disproportionate power over the bigger states? Interestingly, Virginia did not mind the unit voting by delegates in the Convention--for the sake of harmony. It was a good thing that orderly rules conducting the speaking and voting were in place, as passions and oratory were manifest. Western expansion and regional concerns hovered around too. The legality of this convention was questioned-- accused of bounding beyond its scope. One must remember that as an example England really only had three states, so something unique beyond the British Parliamentary model would be needed for these united peoples. They were all in one accord in the desire for "hard money." When things got disparaging, and in spite of the complaint that they had not budgeted in a Chaplain for these proceedings, agnostic Ben Franklin suggested that they take time to pray. Ben Franklin also had to sell this legal design work with the admonition that, thought he did not agree with everything, it was the best ever presented. At the end he made his famous comment about the painting in the room with the ambiguous sun at the horizon and its analogy to what time would say about their results. At the start one question was the "division of powers": states governments and the new federal government. The threat of delegates "taking their ball and going home" cast its pall over the proceedings. Let's look at their struggle.

The Major Controversies

  • Big States Versus Small
    The Virginia Plan
    This plan was introduced on May, 29 by Virginia's lead delegate, Edmund Randolph, it favored populous states (and wealthier ones). The discussion went to committee of the whole where more freer debate could occur. It promoted representation in two houses based on the corresponding population of each state. Of course, the small states of Delaware and New Jersey were fiercely against this proposal, joined by the moderately sized New York, Maryland, and Connecticut delegates. The rift began to widen here between North and South, Free States and Slave-holding when discussing this plan and they calculated apportionment. Mason was strong arguing for the lower house "...be chosen by the people." One narrative wonders,
    The Virginia Plan did not get the root of the problem of maintaining a federal state. This is all the more remarkable, since both Madison and Wilson had shown a real grasp of the federal idea. 5
    The New Jersey Plan
    On June 9, after delegates and committees anguished on the Virginia Plan, Paterson of New Jersey brought forth his one vote for each state idea in a speech, but the Nationalists thought they were on a roll. And, on June 11 Sherman's motion for one vote each in the upper house of the Senate was defeated by one vote. Now the New Jersey Plan Introduced officially on June 15th, also called the small-state plan, basically introduced a few changes in the Articles. He was backed by Roger Sherman, Luther Martin and John Lansing. He wanted to keep one legislative house with equal representation along with armed coercion for enforcing their laws, as well as putting that federated entity supremacy over the states. Paterson was trying to be more in tune with the limits of their authority working on the Articles. The danger was looming, however, that large states would form their own confederation if they had to submit to smaller realms. Wilson rebutted citing current wimpiness of Congress, and Pinckney was ready to throw in the towel and allow New Jersey to receive an equal vote if meant the national constitution would prevail. This was is where the Nationalists, a coalition across state lines, knew what they were up against. This is where Alexander Hamilton enters the scene (who actually wanted to do away with state governments) with his famous oratorical expertise. With six hours of appeal, he reminded them of lessons to be learned from Classical and historical precedences; and he made this point:
    Two Sovereignties can not co-exist within the same limits. Giving powers to Congress must eventuate in a bad government or no Government.
    Hamilton then cites Madison about the many oppressing the few, especially when they are aroused with "popular passions, they spread like wild fire." The Virginia Plan was approved on June 19th seven to three, but more debates ensued.
    The Connecticut Plan
  • This was known as the Great Compromise, yet some think minds were being made up already way before the big blowout. It was just before July 16th when this proposal of a legislature consisting Senate with equal vote had also the House with the 'federal ratio' -population enumeration that also counted slaves as three-fifths of a voter as pushed by Davie. There was a compromise written on proposal to end the slave trade by 1808.
  • Representation
  • That issue of counting all the slaves wound up compromised after Davie (and North Carolina) threatened to exit stage left.

    They agreed on two houses, with the Senate's members elected by state legislatures (changed to direct vote by the XVII Amendment a 120 years later.) It was the hot issue and it was a warm day on June 25th when the terms of the Senate were bantered about. They decided on the six-year terms of the Senate for insulation from popular persuasions, but the two-year terms of the House meant to keep them close to the popular wants.

  • The Executive
  • Sherman, Dickinson, and Martin wanted a less powerful executive leader picked by the legislature: and this was the majority view. It took the combined wits and nerve of the Nationalists, or Federalists, Madison, Wilson, G. Morris, and Hamilton to cajole others during the Virginia Plan turmoil. James Wilson's compromise is the electoral college that is used today, albeit every state now has correlation with their direct vote for those electors. They had to haggle over the terms, or whether or not what would become termed the President, could be re-elected. Finally without restrictions on re-running for that office, the independent selection not by legislature, but that indirect vote won out.
  • The Judicial
  • The Virginia Plan called for election Federal judges, but, Federalists wanted Supreme Court judges to be appointed by the executive, but the state government experienced influenced delegates obtained the compromise we have today. The President appoints, the Congress approves. Though Butler feared losing authority to more lower Federal courts, Madison and Wilson achieved the future government ability to establish them. Madison did not want the judiciary to have preeminence over the executive concerning legal revision, or judical review. He failed to get the sharing of that power.
  • The Battle for Ratification
  • Over, It's not over --Rambo

    Though, at first, the Federalist looked strong, with a formidable team, Washington, the Morrises, Madison, Hamilton, even Franklin, but there was strong leadership on the other side, the anti-Federalists comprising a list of their own 'superstars'-- Patrick Henry, Sam Adams, Richard Henry Lee, John Hancock and others including ones like the apostate delegate Gerry. Promises had to be made of a Bill of Rights to be added to get the Convention's signatures, which occurred on September 17. Though the famous Federalist Papers were published It came down to not James Madison standing up to Patrick Henry, because he was charisma personified. It was the deciding votes of westerners, who cast their lot with a national system, over and against their love of more liberty, for the sake of protection from Indigenous people's incursions. It looked so good in December 7 when Delaware ratified it unanimously. After a bitter conflagration, Pennsylvania approved on the 12th, and New Jersey was unopposed on the 18th. (Rhode Island's popular plebiscite rejected it the next year in March: they did not come on board until late May, 1790.) It was not until the next year that almost all of the other states finally-- where Georgia voted for it 26-0, but North Carolina procrastinated to be next to the last--they ratified what has become the most valuable piece of secular paper in the Universe.

Footnotes:

1 Kenneth Scott Latourette, "The Expanding Effect of Christianity," A History of Christianity, (2 vols., New York 1975), I, pp. 977-978.

2 Lawrence Henry Gibson, "The British Empire in 1763," The Coming of the Revolution, 1763-1775, (New York, 1962), pp. 6-7.

3 Page Smith, "A New Frame of Government" The Shaping of America (8 vols., New York, 1980), III, p. 54

4 James MacGregor Burns, "Philadelphia: The Continental Caucus", The Vineyard of Liberty, (New York, 1981), p. 33.

5 Henry Steele Commager and Samuel Eliot Morrison, "Liberty and Empire," Growth of the American Republic, (Two vols. New York, 1962), I, pp. 152-153.

6Ibid., " The Federal Convention and Constitution", p. 278.


Bibliography

Kenneth Scott Latourette, A History of Christianity; Volume II: Reformation to the Present, New York: Harpers and Row, 1975.

Lawrence Henry Gibson, The Coming of the Revolution, 1763-1775, New York: Harper and Row, 1962.

Page Smith, The Shaping of America: A People's History of the Young Republic; Volume III, New York: McGraw-Hill, 1980)

Henry Steele Commager and Samuel Eliot Morrison, Growth of the American Republic, New York: Oxford University Press, 1962.

The Constitution of the United States: With Case Studies (Bicentennial Edition), ed. Edward Conrad Smith, Harold J. Spaeth, New York: Harper and Row/Barnes and Noble, 1987)

Marcia Lynn Whicker, Ruth Anne Strickland, Ramond A. Moore, The Constitution Under Pressure: A Time for a Change, New York: Praeger, 1987.

David A. Midgley, Social Studies American History: How to Prepare for College Board Achievement Tests, Woodbury: Barron's Educational Series, 1980.

William Miller, A New History of the United States, New York: George Braziller Inc., 1958.

James MacGregor Burns, The Vineyard of Liberty: The American Experiment, New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1981.

Log in or registerto write something here or to contact authors.