2024 the best offer movie explained review

Price: $19.00
(as of Dec 12, 2024 05:41:15 UTC - Details)

NATIONAL BESTSELLER • The Pulitzer Prize–winning author of Founding Brothers tells the unexpected story of America’s second great founding and of the men most responsible—Alexander Hamilton, George Washington, John Jay, and James Madison.

Ellis explains of why the thirteen colonies, having just fought off the imposition of a distant centralized governing power, would decide to subordinate themselves anew. These men, with the help of Robert Morris and Gouverneur Morris, shaped the contours of American history by diagnosing the systemic dysfunctions created by the Articles of Confederation, manipulating the political process to force the calling of the Constitutional Convention, conspiring to set the agenda in Philadelphia, orchestrating the debate in the state ratifying conventions, and, finally, drafting the Bill of Rights to assure state compliance with the constitutional settlement, created the new republic. Ellis gives us a dramatic portrait of one of the most crucial and misconstrued periods in American history: the years between the end of the Revolution and the formation of the federal government.

The Quartet unmasks a myth, and in its place presents an even more compelling truth—one that lies at the heart of understanding the creation of the United States of America.

Publisher ‏ : ‎ Vintage; Reprint edition (May 3, 2016)
Language ‏ : ‎ English
Paperback ‏ : ‎ 320 pages
ISBN-10 ‏ : ‎ 080417248X
ISBN-13 ‏ : ‎ 978-0804172486
Item Weight ‏ : ‎ 2.31 pounds
Dimensions ‏ : ‎ 5.25 x 0.7 x 7.9 inches
Reviewer: Jefferis Peterson
Rating: 5.0 out of 5 stars
Title: What if the Constitution Had Not Compromised on Slavery?
Review: With 20-20 hindsight, history teaches us that the immoral compromise over slavery, made in order to ratify our Constitution, led inevitably to a Civil War, which made us pay for our past mistakes with the blood of our citizens. What is missing from our history books is an appreciation for how unlikely it was that our Constitution was even created. Joseph Ellis makes a convincing case that the citizens of the newly freed States were in no mood to form a centralized, national government at all. Tired of war and tyranny, by distant powers, the people were suspicious of any attempt to regulate the States by a federal government. They were, by all accounts, content with the dysfunctional and ineffective Articles of Confederation. What was more likely was that the States would go their own way, ignore their debts to Europe and England (the Treaty of Paris obligated the new nation to repay its loans to individual lenders and banks), and even wages due to their own soldiers. Ellis’ book shows how four men (Washington, Hamilton, Madison, and Jay) maneuvered and cajoled the political process to force a vote on a Constitutional Republic, with built in checks and balances, which preserved States’ rights and Federal competence. It is a marvelous book, which needs only a little bit of editing to remove some repetitive material. It appears to have been pieced together from separate lectures that covered some common ground. Aside from that, it is a fascinating look at what we now consider as inevitable, which was hardly inevitable at all; namely, the United States of America. I highly recommend this book as both a good read and an antidote to our ignorance on the fragile compromise that allowed the Constitution to be created and ratified in the first place.But what if the Constitution had not been ratified?Ellis points out that the southern States all were dependent upon an agricultural economy, which was ingloriously dependent upon slave labor. While men of conscience from the North railed against this immoral evil, without a compromise on the issue of slavery, the Constitution would never have been ratified. The Southern States would not have joined. There would have been no United States, but a loose confederation of States which may eventually have gone to war with one another over land claims and other disputes. The Confederation may have devolved into a European style competition between small countries, like France and England.It was not that men of conscience did not oppose the evil in Congress."Luther Martin of Maryland denounced slavery as 'an odious bargain with sin, inconsistent with the principles of the revolution and dishonorable to the American character.' Gouverneur Morris pronounced slavery 'a curse'” – p. 145.And John Adams was well known for his opposition. But without slavery, the Southern delegates believed they could not survive, and most of those delegates owned slaves themselves.The compromise to allow slavery, but only count them as 3/5ths of a person, was a compromise made to limit the voting power of the Southern States in the House of Representatives. If counted as full persons, it would have given the South much greater representation in the House and increased the influence of slavery. The compromise, a deal with the devil, was made, and allowed the Constitution to be accepted and ratified by all Thirteen States.No one is now happy about this bargain with sin, but we all recognize that the Constitution would not have been ratified without it. Some people suggest it would have been better for the Constitution never to have been ratified and the country never created. But what if it had not? It could be argued that it would have been worse for the issue of slavery, and slavery still might have been an issue today. Why? The issue is the land claims of the Southern States, especially Virginia. Virginia’s land clams included Ohio and Michigan! Slavery would have extended westward and northward, effectively locking in the New England and Northern states to a small portion of the continent.In order to form a federal government, Virginia and then the other Southern States, surrendered claims to Ohio and the West (p. 74ff and 88ff). If they had not done that, but had resisted, these states would have gained much more power both politically and economically as their populations increased while the North was locked in place. The likelihood of a civil war over slavery looks almost impossible. The North would not have the votes in Congress, Lincoln would never have been elected, there would have been no Missouri Compromise to limit slave expansion in the West. The only way slavery would have ended was from some internal change or revolt. The possibility is that the machine age would have made slavery uneconomical, but without a Supreme Court or a 14th Amendment to secure the rights of all people, there would have been no incentive in the great Southern Empire, to grant equality or rights to the former slave population.Doubtless the North American States would have shied away from World War One and Two. But these counterfactuals require modal knowledge, which we don’t have. The only seeming certainty is that the short term compromise with evil in ratification of the Constitution eventually led to the elimination of slavery and the establishment of the 14th Amendment through the shedding of blood as we fought among ourselves for a greater justice for all. While an intrinsic evil, I would argue that the compromise over slavery in the Constitution eventually led to a better outcome than if there had been no United States of America and no Constitution at all.

Reviewer: Eugene C.
Rating: 4.0 out of 5 stars
Title: A worthwhile read but not without fault
Review: Very readable book, interlaced with author’s conclusions which he asserts are supported by his reading and synthesis of facts from various scholars and sources. There are occasional appearances of liberal bias. The main opinion related to modern situation is that, regarding the Constitutional interpretation based on “original intention”, is not valid and explicitly the 2nd Amendment Heller decision is wrong and that 2nd Amendment only applies to the militia based on a Madison draft of what would become the 2nd Amendment, that was never passed by Congress. The “original intent” doctrine is based on the understanding of the makers intent of an agreement as it came to be ratified in its final form, not on some intermediate draft. Ellis assertion on this point does not have merit. Similarly, the author asserts that the Philadelphia Convention delegates exceeded their authority and the Articles of Confederation (AoC), Article XIII, regarding unanimity for ratification was violated. It does not appear that he has read the commissions of the various states that were issued before February 21, 1787. Nor did he take into account that seven states had answered the call to Philadelphia, from Annapolis, before the Articles Congress acted to endorse the call. Nor that the Philadelphia Convention informed Congress and sent them a copy of the draft plan and that AoC Congress forwarded that plan to the states for ratification, thereby complying with AoC Article VI section 2 regarding entering into agreements among the states. The Philadelphia Convention was called outside the bounds of the Articles of Confederation not under its provisions. He does, however, assert the progressive era positions regarding economic motivations of the founders, described by Beard and Jensen, has been thoroughly discredited and are without merit. He also document the total failure of the AoC as an instrument upon which to govern and that its replacement was viewed as a crisis by the Quartet. One can only speculate what would have happened had the Philadelphia Convention failed or if the U.S. Constitution had not been adopted. Ellis accuses the colonists “… of a policy of genocide in slow motion, in which the march of white migration was accompanied by an artillery barrage of microbes that cleared the way.” This phrase implies that the white people knowingly used, to put the implied modern term to it, “germ-warfare” against the native population. White colonist knew no more about ‘microbes’ than the Indians did. He then goes on to accuse the colonist of deliberately obscuring the facts of westward expansion allow “…focus on the beneficiaries rather than the Indian victims.” Ellis uses the language of eastern establishment victim-hood to impugn all things associated with expansion. What choice did anyone have once the Americas were discovered and immigration commenced? Life happens. This section does not enhance his work for this reader. To view this episode through modern eyes with the elitist attitude is not useful to understanding our history. Ellis humanizes George Washington to an admirable extent. Washington is no longer the silent sphinx but is reveled through his letters to be essential to the creation of the Constitution. Washington also appreciated his impact on events. He does not want to waste that impact on losing propositions. The author also helps to illuminate the character and role of John Jay, a founder who has not received much popular recognition. His treatment of Hamilton is consistent with other accepted assessments. Madison is, however , described as both a great political philosopher as well as, when the need arises, a remarkably able and thorough political strategist. Madison’s views on the federal system evolve, from the beginning of the Philadelphia Convention with his drafting of the Virginia Plan in conjunction with his fellow founders prior to the first meeting, through ultimately, the final ratification of the U.S. Constitution. Madison came to recognize that had the provisions he originally demanded been included, the Constitution never would have been ratified by the State Conventions.The chapter end notes are worth the read. Some of them explain the author’s conclusions or highlight exceptionally worthwhile reference works cited. The book provides some insights that parallel today’s political situation. Except for a few, what I consider to be, basic historical errors, this book provides useful and thought provoking information. Do your own fact checking if some assertions seem jarring to you.

Reviewer: Amazon Customer
Rating: 5.0 out of 5 stars
Title:
Review: One of the most engaging books on the behind the scenes effort of great men with a great vision for a great nation. The pains they took to structure an unobtrusive government accountable to the people to avoid tyranny.

Reviewer: suilbup
Rating: 4.0 out of 5 stars
Title:
Review: A good book for facts about the critical period and the creation of the Constitution not often seen in the classroom, and useful for understanding the circumstances of the time. Personally, the thesis is weaker than Ellis’ other books, though, and some of the claims could be better read in cross-examination with other sources, especially regarding the ratification period.

Reviewer: mishmish
Rating: 4.0 out of 5 stars
Title:
Review: In this detailed, scholarly work historian Ellis explains how four figures were instrumental after the War of Independence in forging a federal nation with a constitution of checks and balances. The four, Hamilton, Madison, Washington and Jay (as well as Morris, Gouverneur Morris and Jefferson) used their political convictions and brilliance to push through a federal system on the 13 reluctant states and a disparate population that was more attached to their local interests than to nationhood. The four used Washington's fame as well as political cunning to persuade a majority of nine states to accept a federal system of governance while compromising on states rights and the existence of slavery in the south. Finally, even New York State and Rhode Island signed the new Constitution of the United States of America which ensured that a real nation, not a group of quarreling states, was born. Numerous quotations of letters and conversations support Ellis' interpretations of this dramatic period as well as interesting notes and references to other historians.For a less dry account of this same period I would recommend the very readable and exciting MIRACLE AT PHILADELPHIA by historian Catherine Drinker Bowen.

Reviewer: Vittorio De Alfaro
Rating: 5.0 out of 5 stars
Title:
Review: J Ellis has told me a special story about George Washington and three other people who worked very hard to give to the 13 States a government, superior to each of them, that lasted for almost 240 years and is still going very strong. The various States did not know about that: some grumbled, some adapted without problems, one refused. But the four people overcame all difficulties in establishing a Federation in 1788-89 where earlier there was a loose, useless confederation of single States; at that time the President lasted at most one year and for 3 years couldn't be president again. The four men put that to the end. They established a Constitution that, with changes, improvements from time to time, is lasting since 1789: a miracle, thinking about the original 13 states and how difficult it was to initiate the superstate Nation as they did.

Reviewer: Holger Breme
Rating: 5.0 out of 5 stars
Title:
Review: No other document is so revered by Americans than the Constitution of the United States (except the Declaration of Independence perhaps). Few of them may realise that this founding document of the Republic came into being six years after the war against British rule was won. In his famous "Gettysburg Adress" (the third founding document) no lesser man than Abraham Lincoln erred when he spoke of "four score and seven years ago" since the Republic's start. It was more complicated: The USA could have ended as a bickering and infighting political body not unlike Latinamerica or the European Union. Four men were responsible that this fate wasn't met: Alexander Hamilton, George Washington, John Jay and James Madison. Josephl J. Ellis tells their story and he does it with his usual scholarship and very entertaining writing.