The Creation of the American Republic, 1776-1787 (Published for the Omohundro Institute of Early American History and Culture, Williamsburg, Virginia)

This book is a fascinating study of the transformation of political thinking in America from the time of the Declaration to the formation of the US Constitution. The political concepts that are embodied in the Constitution and clarified in the Federalist papers remain today as our fundamental political principles.

The English government of the 18th century, regarded as the most enlightened in the world, embodied the "mixed" government concept, in which monarchial (the king), aristocratic (House of Lords), and democratic (House of Commons) elements of the government represented the social divisions of the supreme power, the aristocrats, and the people. English sovereignty resided in the government. There existed an implied contract between the rulers and the ruled, of which a bill of rights was part, that ensured liberty.

As the author develops, Parliamentary and ministerial excesses towards the colonists began a process of new political thinking among colonial intellectuals, which first questioned notions of dual sovereignty (colonies being under both colonial assemblies and Parliament) and the virtual representation of Parliament, but eventually led to far more extensive questioning of the British conception of society and government. At the time of Independence, colonial thinkers posed "republicanism," or a virtuous society, in contrast to British corruption. Also, in forming state constitutions, they emphasized legislative superiority as best representing citizens, even to the extent of eliminating executive and judiciary elements. However, those notions proved to be chimeras. Elites of the new states, especially creditors, bond holders, etc, felt "tyrannized" by state legislatures that, under the sway of a so-called unscrupulous element, passed stay and tender laws, among other "democratical" measures. Legislative excess combined with the ineffectualness of the Articles of Confederation in interstate and international dealings spurred nationalists like James Madison and Alexander Hamilton to orchestrate the calling of a Convention to completely revamp the Articles.

The author little discusses the specific issues of the Convention (see Decision in Philadelphia by Christopher Collier): the structure of Congress regarding big vs. small states; the terms of entry of new states, slavery considerations, taxation, and commerce; and the distribution of power among three branches. As the author notes, much of the innovative thinking that came out of the Convention was scarcely understood at first. The Constitution, certainly as the nationalists, or Federalists, explained it, rejected the incorporation of social distinctions in the Constitution. Furthermore, no longer was it held that the government embodied the nation, per se. Now, the people collectively represented the nation and retained all sovereignty. All branches of the government: the President, Senators, Representatives, judges, etc, represented all the people. The people retained all power and merely temporarily and partially delegated authority to the government, supposedly to be withdrawn at the behest of the people. State sovereignty was essentially minimized. Again the states were mere creatures of the people. John Adams is seen by the author as a tragic figure. He could not understand that the separation of powers found in the Constitution is not an example of mixed government that he continued to espouse, but was a check and balance of power.

The debate over the Bill of Rights demonstrates the confusion at the time of what the Constitution actually represented. Bills of rights had, at least since the Magna Carta, been regarded as inviolable contracts guaranteeing that rulers would respect the liberty of the ruled. But with this new Constitution, no longer was such a distinction valid: there were no rulers and ruled. The Federalists scarcely thought to incorporate a bill of rights because of their belief that all rights remained with the people and were not a grant from a king, or such. Eventually, the Federalists came to see the practicality of the Bill of Rights, not the least of which was the passage of the Constitution by the various state ratifying conventions. The idea of a contract was confined to the hypothetical agreement among the people to form a nation and the requisite supporting structures, like a Constitution and a government.

The Convention also overturned the long-held idea that republics had to be small consisting of a homogeneous population. Madison essentially turned that notion on its head, by positing that large republics would have offsetting minorities that would prevent the tyranny of a well-formed majority. In addition, in contrast to the relatively small electoral districts of states, the US Congress had large districts which would more likely result in the "better" sort getting elected, a major concern of the nationalists.

The author certainly acknowledges that, in some sense, there is some superficiality in the democratic aspects of the Convention and the Constitution. The nationalists clearly wanted to curb democracy. However, more recent works, such as Woody Holton's "Unruly Americans," make the claim that the massive breakdown of the US financial system in the decade after 1776 and the dire straights in which many found themselves, makes the efforts to ameliorate their situations through state legislatures seem far less irresponsible than the claims of the nationalists. In addition, the actual empowerment of the people by giving them complete sovereignty goes unexamined. Assertion of power invariably requires the focus of organizations or institutions. Merely accumulating votes of scattered voters every few years seems to be a minimalist, if effective at all, means of actually effectuating power. The author touches not at all of the immense potential for the people being propagandized by elites.

The book is quite interesting. There is no lack of quotes from all manner of sources throughout. The book is also long and, it must be said, repetitious. Chronology is mostly ignored: the author roams back and forth across the period and across geographical bounds. However, as one reviewer noted, there is much to highlight. It would be hard to see anyone wanting to understand the American break from Britain and the creation of a unique political entity ignoring this book.

This classic work from 1969 is an outstanding work of original scholarship that provides an essential overview of the origins of America's political system. Like Bernard Bailyn's "The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution", it covers the Greek, Roman, and British political ideas that influenced the American Revolution and its ultimate result, the federal system created by the U.S. Constitution. But Wood goes much deeper than Bailyn did in analyzing the development of American political thought and systems of government in the years between 1776 and 1787. This is a long book - over 600 pages - with lots of details, so it might be too much for casual readers; but readers who really want to understand the early development of America's political system will find it very valuable and learn a lot from it. It won the prestigious Bancroft and John H. Dunning prizes for American history in 1970.

Since other reviewers have done a good job describing the book, I won't do so myself. However, I would like to talk about the differences between it and Wood's "The Radicalism of the American Revolution" from 1991 which won the Pulitzer Prize in History. You might be wondering whether you really need to buy and read both of these books. If you're interested in this period of American history, then my answer is an unqualified "yes". The two books are actually quite different in their focus. While this book tracks the political developments that occurred during the American Revolution, the other book focuses much more on the social changes that took place, which Wood follows all the way to the 1830s.

You might also wonder which of these books to read first. Since this one was written earlier, reading it first has a certain logic and is what I did; but you could read them in either order, perhaps guided by your personal interest or time constraints. (RotAR is under 400 pages.) Neither book is a prerequisite for the other.

I found this book to be very enlightening. It gives a glimpse into the workings of American Politics. Especially now with the elections coming up. It's good to know where this process came from and how it evolved over time.

I read the Creation of the American Republic for my U.S. Consitutional History Class. Admitedly it is very long, and it is not a book that you can skim through, but every single page has something that will make you think, I have never marked up a book as much as I did while reading this book. This book will definately influence your view on how the constitution was formed and how the the Constitution helps to shape our lives. I would recomend it to anyone and everyone, though if you are not interested in history the subjects may go over your head.

mostly due to the archaic language of the source material but the payoff is immense.

This survey of the literature shows how the seemingly contradictory theories of mixed government and republicanism were synthesized by our founders to form our representative system of government.

If you read this the next time someone tells you what our founding fathers intentions were you'll know exactly how accurate they're being.