Pauline Maier (1938–2013)
Author of American Scripture: Making the Declaration of Independence
About the Author
Pauline Maier was born on April 27, 1938 in St. Paul, Minnesota. She received an undergraduate degree in American history and literature from Radcliffe College in 1960, studied at the London School of Economics and Political Science on a Fulbright scholarship, and received a Ph.D. in history from show more Harvard University. She was a history professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology for three decades. She wrote several books including From Resistance to Revolution: Colonial Radicals and the Development of American Opposition to Britain, 1765-1776, The Old Revolutionaries: Political Lives in the Age of Samuel Adams, and American Sculpture: Making the Declaration of Independence. She won the George Washington Book Prize for Ratification: The People Debate the Constitution, 1787-1788. She died of lung cancer on August 12, 2013 at the age of 75. (Bowker Author Biography) show less
Works by Pauline Maier
Associated Works
The Declaration of Independence and The Constitution of the United States (1776) — Introduction, some editions — 2,349 copies, 17 reviews
The Transformation of Early American History: Society, Authority, and Ideology: How the Writings and Influence of Bernard Bailyn Have Changed Our Understanding of the American… (1991) — Contributor — 39 copies, 2 reviews
The Development of a Revolutionary Mentality: Papers Presented at the First Library of Congress Symposium on the American Revolution, May 5 and 6, 1972 (1972) — Contributor — 23 copies
Recent Themes in Early American History: Historians in Conversation (2008) — Contributor — 8 copies, 1 review
The William and Mary Quarterly, July 1987: Constitution of the United States — Contributor — 2 copies
Tagged
Common Knowledge
- Canonical name
- Maier, Pauline
- Legal name
- Maier, Pauline Alice (née Rubbelke)
- Birthdate
- 1938-04-27
- Date of death
- 2013-08-12
- Gender
- female
- Education
- Radcliffe College (BA ∙ 1960)
Harvard University (PhD ∙ 1968)
London School of Economics (1961) - Occupations
- professor (American History)
historian - Organizations
- Massachusetts Institute of Technology
American Antiquarian Society (1976)
Society of American Historians (president, 2011)
Harvard Crimson - Awards and honors
- Fulbright Fellowship (1961)
Fellow, American Academy of Arts and Sciences (1998) - Relationships
- Maier, Charles S. (husband)
Maier, Jessica (daughter) - Short biography
- Pauline Rubbelke was born and raised in St. Paul, Minnesota. Her original ambition was to be a newspaper reporter. At Radcliffe College, she wrote for The Harvard Crimson, where she met her future husband, Charles S. Maier, and worked summers at the Patriot Ledger in Quincy, Mass. After graduation, Pauline and Charles both went to England for further study, she as a Fulbright Scholar at the London School of Economics and Political Science. After completing their fellowships, they married and eventually had three children. Back at Harvard University to pursue her PhD degree, Pauline Maier was drawn to the study of the 18th century and the American Revolutionary War era. She taught at the University of Massachusetts Boston for nine years, and for a year at the University of Wisconsin before joining the faculty of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 1978 as Kenan Professor of American History. In 1998, she won MIT's Killian Award, given annually to a senior member of the faculty for outstanding achievement. She also was elected a fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences. She was the 2011 President of the Society of American Historians. Pauline Maier is the author of numerous scholarly articles and books, including From Resistance to Revolution (1972).
- Cause of death
- lung cancer
- Nationality
- USA
- Birthplace
- St. Paul, Minnesota, USA
- Places of residence
- Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA
- Place of death
- Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA
- Burial location
- Mount Auburn Cemetery, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA
- Associated Place (for map)
- Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA
Members
Reviews
Pauline Maier begins her new book Ratification: The People Debate the Constitution, 1787-1788 (Simon & Schuster, 2010) with an idea she remembered being promoted by the historian Barbara Tuchman: "A writer can build suspense in telling a story, she said, even if the reader knows how the story turned out, so long as the writer never mentions the outcome until it happens at the proper place in the story" (p. xvi). Maier adds that this book is an effort to test that theory, and at least to the show more thinking of this reader, that effort worked like a charm.
You could fill a shelf with books written about the Constitutional Convention (actually several shelves, as my living room will testify), but as Maier notes in her introduction, books on the ratification process are few and far between, and there has never been a narrative history that treats the entire sequence of ratifying convention (Maier writes that she sympathizes with those past historians who have shied away from tackling the subject: "It's no easy thing to tell the story of an event that happened in thirteen different places, sometimes simultaneously", p. x).
Drawing on the wonderful resource that is the Documentary History of the Ratification of the Constitution (and lavishing much well-deserved praise on that project), Maier has done what no one else has ever managed to do. Ratification is a tour de force display of a historian's skills: she has written a history of the ratification debates that is not only readable, but is also as captivating as any political thriller I've ever read. How'd she do it?
First, she includes a useful framing device: George Washington. In a prologue, Maier focuses on Washington's careful deliberations over whether or not he should participate in the Philadelphia Convention, and throughout the book, as the Constitution is debated from New Hampshire to Georgia, she returns to Mount Vernon to monitor Washington's efforts to encourage and support ratification of the Constitution (and to obtain information about the process as it happened).
Second, Maier brings in new characters. While the familiar participants in the debates (James Wilson, James Madison, Patrick Henry, John Jay, Alexander Hamilton, &c.) take their rightful place here, a whole cast of new and intriguing characters are also brought to the front of the stage. From Amos Singletary, Dummer Sewall, Jonathan Smith, and Phanuel Bishop in Massachusetts to Zachariah Johnston in Virginia to Melancton Smith and Gilbert Livingston in New York, Maier plucks from the DHRC's vast archive new voices, some of whom had extremely interesting things to say about the Constitution and its potential impact on America's future.
Third, the narrative structure of the book brings the sense of contingency into the picture, and offers Maier an opportunity to present the ratification process in each state as it was: a totally different situation from those that had come before, with important consequences for those that would come after. The debacle in Pennsylvania, in which supporters of ratification basically tried to rush debate and shove through the Constitution over the objections of a very vocal minority, led future conventions to move much more carefully and deliberately (and, as in Massachusetts, caused the majority's delegates to take much more care to ensure that their opponents felt like their arguments were being considered). As more states ratified, the situation continued to shift, so that by the time later conventions met the question became not whether the Constitution would take effect, but whether the state would join the new government or stay outside it (this argument ended up playing a major role in several of the final conventions). Each state's convention was markedly different in terms of style, rules, tone, and method of debate (not to mention the reporting of its proceedings); that Maier has managed to bring together this vast amount of data into a coherent form is a true testament to her skill as a storyteller.
Beyond the conventions themselves, Maier turns her sharp eye to the press coverage of the ratification process, both in terms of how the press in different states handled the debates over the Constitution (some refusing to print anti-ratification essays, others refusing to print unsigned or anonymous submissions), and how the newspaper coverage was received by the population at large and how the essays did (and, perhaps more importantly, did not) shape the convention debates.
I think the most fascinating aspect of the story to me was the level of attention which convention delegates in various states (and non-delegates too, for that matter) brought to the discussions of the proposed Constitution. These people knew the document, they understood what its provisions meant, and they brought keen eyes and sharp minds to the table. How many of us (or of our current crop of legislators) could decipher the objections leveled against the proposed Constitution by the town meeting of Belchertown, Massachusetts: "1st. there is no bill of Right[s]. For other Reasons See artical 1 Section 2-3-4 and 8[,] artical 2d Section 1 & 2[,] artical 3d Section 1 and [Article] 6. With many other obvious Reasons" (p. xvi). Now, to be fair, if we were in their shoes we (well, some of us, anyway) might pay a similar level of attention, but Maier offers a glimpse of just how involved and devoted "we the people" were to making sure their rights and liberties were guarded by the new framework of government they were charged with approving or rejecting.
It seems to me that the ratification process is one of those historical moments where we think we know the story, but we really only know that it all worked out in the end. I was shocked to learn that Rhode Island first submitted the Constitution to the people for a public referendum, instead of calling a convention to decide its fate: the vote, held in March 1788, failed 237-2708. It was not until May 1790, after Congress had passed a bill prohibiting all trade with Rhode Island and demanding repayment of a $25,000 debt (prompting Providence to open discussions about seceding from the rest of the state), that a convention voted in a squeaker (34-32) to ratify the Constitution. I'd known RI was the last to ratify, but the specifics really bring home just how powerful the opposition there was (the same could be said, I must note, for most of the other states, where ratification was anything but a sure-run thing).
A final chapter ties up the loose ends, covering the organization of the federal government (bringing Washington back into the picture), and the actions of the first Congress in proposing and submitting to the states the first round of amendments (recommended by a number of the state conventions). In a postscript she revisits the characters from the conventions, examining their future careers and, generally, their conversion to support for the Constitution as it took effect.
Sure to stand the test of time, this is a must-read book for the political junkie, or for anyone interested in the Constitution's origins and the debates which eventually - but not inevitably, as every page makes clear - led to its adoption by the people of these United States.
http://philobiblos.blogspot.com/2010/11/book-review-ratification.html show less
You could fill a shelf with books written about the Constitutional Convention (actually several shelves, as my living room will testify), but as Maier notes in her introduction, books on the ratification process are few and far between, and there has never been a narrative history that treats the entire sequence of ratifying convention (Maier writes that she sympathizes with those past historians who have shied away from tackling the subject: "It's no easy thing to tell the story of an event that happened in thirteen different places, sometimes simultaneously", p. x).
Drawing on the wonderful resource that is the Documentary History of the Ratification of the Constitution (and lavishing much well-deserved praise on that project), Maier has done what no one else has ever managed to do. Ratification is a tour de force display of a historian's skills: she has written a history of the ratification debates that is not only readable, but is also as captivating as any political thriller I've ever read. How'd she do it?
First, she includes a useful framing device: George Washington. In a prologue, Maier focuses on Washington's careful deliberations over whether or not he should participate in the Philadelphia Convention, and throughout the book, as the Constitution is debated from New Hampshire to Georgia, she returns to Mount Vernon to monitor Washington's efforts to encourage and support ratification of the Constitution (and to obtain information about the process as it happened).
Second, Maier brings in new characters. While the familiar participants in the debates (James Wilson, James Madison, Patrick Henry, John Jay, Alexander Hamilton, &c.) take their rightful place here, a whole cast of new and intriguing characters are also brought to the front of the stage. From Amos Singletary, Dummer Sewall, Jonathan Smith, and Phanuel Bishop in Massachusetts to Zachariah Johnston in Virginia to Melancton Smith and Gilbert Livingston in New York, Maier plucks from the DHRC's vast archive new voices, some of whom had extremely interesting things to say about the Constitution and its potential impact on America's future.
Third, the narrative structure of the book brings the sense of contingency into the picture, and offers Maier an opportunity to present the ratification process in each state as it was: a totally different situation from those that had come before, with important consequences for those that would come after. The debacle in Pennsylvania, in which supporters of ratification basically tried to rush debate and shove through the Constitution over the objections of a very vocal minority, led future conventions to move much more carefully and deliberately (and, as in Massachusetts, caused the majority's delegates to take much more care to ensure that their opponents felt like their arguments were being considered). As more states ratified, the situation continued to shift, so that by the time later conventions met the question became not whether the Constitution would take effect, but whether the state would join the new government or stay outside it (this argument ended up playing a major role in several of the final conventions). Each state's convention was markedly different in terms of style, rules, tone, and method of debate (not to mention the reporting of its proceedings); that Maier has managed to bring together this vast amount of data into a coherent form is a true testament to her skill as a storyteller.
Beyond the conventions themselves, Maier turns her sharp eye to the press coverage of the ratification process, both in terms of how the press in different states handled the debates over the Constitution (some refusing to print anti-ratification essays, others refusing to print unsigned or anonymous submissions), and how the newspaper coverage was received by the population at large and how the essays did (and, perhaps more importantly, did not) shape the convention debates.
I think the most fascinating aspect of the story to me was the level of attention which convention delegates in various states (and non-delegates too, for that matter) brought to the discussions of the proposed Constitution. These people knew the document, they understood what its provisions meant, and they brought keen eyes and sharp minds to the table. How many of us (or of our current crop of legislators) could decipher the objections leveled against the proposed Constitution by the town meeting of Belchertown, Massachusetts: "1st. there is no bill of Right[s]. For other Reasons See artical 1 Section 2-3-4 and 8[,] artical 2d Section 1 & 2[,] artical 3d Section 1 and [Article] 6. With many other obvious Reasons" (p. xvi). Now, to be fair, if we were in their shoes we (well, some of us, anyway) might pay a similar level of attention, but Maier offers a glimpse of just how involved and devoted "we the people" were to making sure their rights and liberties were guarded by the new framework of government they were charged with approving or rejecting.
It seems to me that the ratification process is one of those historical moments where we think we know the story, but we really only know that it all worked out in the end. I was shocked to learn that Rhode Island first submitted the Constitution to the people for a public referendum, instead of calling a convention to decide its fate: the vote, held in March 1788, failed 237-2708. It was not until May 1790, after Congress had passed a bill prohibiting all trade with Rhode Island and demanding repayment of a $25,000 debt (prompting Providence to open discussions about seceding from the rest of the state), that a convention voted in a squeaker (34-32) to ratify the Constitution. I'd known RI was the last to ratify, but the specifics really bring home just how powerful the opposition there was (the same could be said, I must note, for most of the other states, where ratification was anything but a sure-run thing).
A final chapter ties up the loose ends, covering the organization of the federal government (bringing Washington back into the picture), and the actions of the first Congress in proposing and submitting to the states the first round of amendments (recommended by a number of the state conventions). In a postscript she revisits the characters from the conventions, examining their future careers and, generally, their conversion to support for the Constitution as it took effect.
Sure to stand the test of time, this is a must-read book for the political junkie, or for anyone interested in the Constitution's origins and the debates which eventually - but not inevitably, as every page makes clear - led to its adoption by the people of these United States.
http://philobiblos.blogspot.com/2010/11/book-review-ratification.html show less
Every year on the Fourth of July, Americans gather together to eat grilled food and set off fireworks in celebration of the founding of their nation. The day is regarded as the nation’s birthday, yet the choice of date is in some respects an arbitrary one. Arguably as good of a case could be made for the nation’s birth taking place on the date of the battles of Lexington and Concord or the convening of the Second Continental Congress in 1775, or with the signing of the Treaty of Paris in show more 1783, or the establishment of the Constitution of the United States in 1788. Instead, the date of July 4, 1776 is regarded as the day the United States was born, because it was on that date that a particular document was signed.
That document, of course, was the Declaration of Independence. As a statement of the reasons the colonies were seeking independence, it served as a bill of charges that justified the extraordinary actions the revolutionaries undertook. With the Revolution won the generations that followed came to revere the Declaration as a statement of the values on which the new republic was based. Yet as Pauline Maier shows, such veneration has had the effect of reshaping the role of the Declaration in ways unimagined by the people who signed it. Her book demonstrates this by deconstructing the process that created the Declaration and examining how it subsequently gained the iconic status it enjoys today.
As Maier notes, the revolutionaries approached the act of declaring independence cautiously. Even after the outbreak of fighting against British troops, many of the members of the Continental Congress balked at the prospect of declaring independence. Some delegates balked at the idea of separation from the British empire and the risks such a move entailed, while others felt constrained by their instructions from their state’s legislatures, which did not authorize such a step. Moreover, the question of declaring independence was just one of the many war-related issues before a heavily burdened body, some of which were of greater urgency. Because of this, it wasn’t until April 1776 – a full year after the outbreak of fighting between colonial forces and British troops – that the Continental Congress committed to pursuing independence.
The Congress assigned the task of drafting the declaration to a five-person committee. Though the committee left no minutes of its proceedings, Maier sifts through the participants’ (oftentimes contradictory) recollections and the surviving documentary record to detail the process. Thomas Jefferson is naturally at the center of her narrative, as breaks down his work to show the elements that reflected its inheritance from similar English and colonial declarations of rights. Yet while giving Jefferson due credit for his role, she also describes the contributions made, by John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, and others in the Continental Congress, who took Jefferson’s hastily-assembled draft and edited to down into the final document with which we are familiar. In the process she makes a convincing case for the Declaration as having improved on the product of Jefferson’s pen.
Once it was signed the Declaration was disseminated quickly throughout the rebelling colonies. Though it was preceded by some of the declarations issued by individual states, localities, and other groups, Maier sees its influence in the ones issued from that point onward. By the end of the war, however, the Declaration virtually disappeared from the discourse as Americans focused on the challenges of building a new nation. This changed with the rise of party politics in the 1790s, as Jefferson’s supporters began celebrating the document as the product of his genius. The stature of the Declaration grew as a new generation of Americans began to revere the revolutionary generation and its achievements. Among their number was Abraham Lincoln, whom Maier credits with doing more than any other single person to empower the Declaration as a document defining the nation’s principles, giving it its continuing relevancy for Americans down to the present day.
Meier recounts all of this in a deftly-written text is easily accessible for the general reader. It’s an outstanding work of scholarship, and all the more so for the modesty of her claims. While she acknowledges her debt to Carl Becker’s classicThe Declaration of Independence: A Study in the History of Political Ideas and disclaims any intention of duplicating his work, she builds nicely upon it to offer a fuller understanding of the document and its legacy. It makes for a book that joins Becker’s work as essential reading for anyone who wants to understand the Declaration and why it continues to matter today. show less
That document, of course, was the Declaration of Independence. As a statement of the reasons the colonies were seeking independence, it served as a bill of charges that justified the extraordinary actions the revolutionaries undertook. With the Revolution won the generations that followed came to revere the Declaration as a statement of the values on which the new republic was based. Yet as Pauline Maier shows, such veneration has had the effect of reshaping the role of the Declaration in ways unimagined by the people who signed it. Her book demonstrates this by deconstructing the process that created the Declaration and examining how it subsequently gained the iconic status it enjoys today.
As Maier notes, the revolutionaries approached the act of declaring independence cautiously. Even after the outbreak of fighting against British troops, many of the members of the Continental Congress balked at the prospect of declaring independence. Some delegates balked at the idea of separation from the British empire and the risks such a move entailed, while others felt constrained by their instructions from their state’s legislatures, which did not authorize such a step. Moreover, the question of declaring independence was just one of the many war-related issues before a heavily burdened body, some of which were of greater urgency. Because of this, it wasn’t until April 1776 – a full year after the outbreak of fighting between colonial forces and British troops – that the Continental Congress committed to pursuing independence.
The Congress assigned the task of drafting the declaration to a five-person committee. Though the committee left no minutes of its proceedings, Maier sifts through the participants’ (oftentimes contradictory) recollections and the surviving documentary record to detail the process. Thomas Jefferson is naturally at the center of her narrative, as breaks down his work to show the elements that reflected its inheritance from similar English and colonial declarations of rights. Yet while giving Jefferson due credit for his role, she also describes the contributions made, by John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, and others in the Continental Congress, who took Jefferson’s hastily-assembled draft and edited to down into the final document with which we are familiar. In the process she makes a convincing case for the Declaration as having improved on the product of Jefferson’s pen.
Once it was signed the Declaration was disseminated quickly throughout the rebelling colonies. Though it was preceded by some of the declarations issued by individual states, localities, and other groups, Maier sees its influence in the ones issued from that point onward. By the end of the war, however, the Declaration virtually disappeared from the discourse as Americans focused on the challenges of building a new nation. This changed with the rise of party politics in the 1790s, as Jefferson’s supporters began celebrating the document as the product of his genius. The stature of the Declaration grew as a new generation of Americans began to revere the revolutionary generation and its achievements. Among their number was Abraham Lincoln, whom Maier credits with doing more than any other single person to empower the Declaration as a document defining the nation’s principles, giving it its continuing relevancy for Americans down to the present day.
Meier recounts all of this in a deftly-written text is easily accessible for the general reader. It’s an outstanding work of scholarship, and all the more so for the modesty of her claims. While she acknowledges her debt to Carl Becker’s classicThe Declaration of Independence: A Study in the History of Political Ideas and disclaims any intention of duplicating his work, she builds nicely upon it to offer a fuller understanding of the document and its legacy. It makes for a book that joins Becker’s work as essential reading for anyone who wants to understand the Declaration and why it continues to matter today. show less
In modern times, the Constitution of the United States has been held by its citizens in such esteem (when they pay attention to it at all) as to put it in the category of a “sacred text.” But that was by no means the case in 1787 and 1788, when the newly-drafted Constitution was sent to the states for ratification.
The fledgling nation was in terrible shape in 1787. The Articles of Confederation, under which the young republic had operated, were inadequate. Most pressing was the issue of show more revenue. The Federal government could not raise revenue directly, but only through requisitions on the state governments. Some paid at least part of their obligations, but most did not, thanks to war-time debts and wide-spread disruption in the economy resulting from the War for Independence. As a result, the United States was in danger of defaulting on its loans (what else is new) and had no money to pay its bills.
But revenue was not the only issue. The country had no army, and was totally dependent on poorly trained and equipped state militias. There was real danger from hostile Native Americans and threats from the British and Spanish. The legislative process was cumbersome.
As a result, a convention was called to meet in Philadelphia in order to amend the Articles of Confederation. But it soon became clear that it was better to write a whole new Constitution, since there was no real hope of salvaging the Articles into a workable document.
While the arguments for ratification were compelling, there were equally strong, valid arguments against adopting the Constitution as written, which was what was being asked. While different states raised varying numbers of objections, the ones on which all opponents agreed were direct taxation, representation, and a lack of specific guarantees or a Bill of Rights such as existed in many (but not all) state constitutions.
Maier tells the story, state by state, of the struggle for ratification and it is fascinating. No two state conventions and ratification processes were like. They ran the gamut from Pennsylvania, were ratification was ramrodded through the state convention and there was violence against opponents in Philadelphia after ratification, to Rhode Island and North Carolina who abstained from ratification and joined the new Union later. But in all 13 states, the debate was on real issues, with real concerns and with true patriots on both sides. Clearly much has been lost in the intervening years.
While absorbing, Ratification is not a fast read. But it is definitely a worthwhile one. Highly recommended. show less
The fledgling nation was in terrible shape in 1787. The Articles of Confederation, under which the young republic had operated, were inadequate. Most pressing was the issue of show more revenue. The Federal government could not raise revenue directly, but only through requisitions on the state governments. Some paid at least part of their obligations, but most did not, thanks to war-time debts and wide-spread disruption in the economy resulting from the War for Independence. As a result, the United States was in danger of defaulting on its loans (what else is new) and had no money to pay its bills.
But revenue was not the only issue. The country had no army, and was totally dependent on poorly trained and equipped state militias. There was real danger from hostile Native Americans and threats from the British and Spanish. The legislative process was cumbersome.
As a result, a convention was called to meet in Philadelphia in order to amend the Articles of Confederation. But it soon became clear that it was better to write a whole new Constitution, since there was no real hope of salvaging the Articles into a workable document.
While the arguments for ratification were compelling, there were equally strong, valid arguments against adopting the Constitution as written, which was what was being asked. While different states raised varying numbers of objections, the ones on which all opponents agreed were direct taxation, representation, and a lack of specific guarantees or a Bill of Rights such as existed in many (but not all) state constitutions.
Maier tells the story, state by state, of the struggle for ratification and it is fascinating. No two state conventions and ratification processes were like. They ran the gamut from Pennsylvania, were ratification was ramrodded through the state convention and there was violence against opponents in Philadelphia after ratification, to Rhode Island and North Carolina who abstained from ratification and joined the new Union later. But in all 13 states, the debate was on real issues, with real concerns and with true patriots on both sides. Clearly much has been lost in the intervening years.
While absorbing, Ratification is not a fast read. But it is definitely a worthwhile one. Highly recommended. show less
I had heard a lot about this book, all of it positive, and so had added it to my pile of books to read, which now I'm slowly working my way through.
The first three sections of the book focus on setting the textual context around which the wording of the Declaration came to be - it describes the many "other Declarations" from states and localities also being produced in the early Revolutionary timeframe, and the debt owed to the English tradition of Declarations, especially the Declaration show more of Rights of 1689, all of which I was unaware of before. There's also a section delving into the authorship (as opposed to drafting) of the document. This history focuses on the wording of the document, more so than the Revolutionary events around it. The author clearly knows her stuff (it's one of those books where you want to make sure you check out the footnotes as there's some good stuff in there), and she keeps it interesting, in plain and engaging language.
In the introduction the author sets the goal of telling two stories - one of the original making of the Declaration, and the other of the "remaking into the document most Americans know, remember and revere". She's very thorough in telling the first story, as mentioned above, but as to the second story things are not nearly as complete. This second story comes in the fourth and final part of the book and mostly revolves around the case she makes for Lincoln "remaking" the document into a statement of principals around equality. The epilogue includes a brief mention of Martin Luther King, and then the book is done. I felt there was much more of that second story to tell that she left untold. show less
The first three sections of the book focus on setting the textual context around which the wording of the Declaration came to be - it describes the many "other Declarations" from states and localities also being produced in the early Revolutionary timeframe, and the debt owed to the English tradition of Declarations, especially the Declaration show more of Rights of 1689, all of which I was unaware of before. There's also a section delving into the authorship (as opposed to drafting) of the document. This history focuses on the wording of the document, more so than the Revolutionary events around it. The author clearly knows her stuff (it's one of those books where you want to make sure you check out the footnotes as there's some good stuff in there), and she keeps it interesting, in plain and engaging language.
In the introduction the author sets the goal of telling two stories - one of the original making of the Declaration, and the other of the "remaking into the document most Americans know, remember and revere". She's very thorough in telling the first story, as mentioned above, but as to the second story things are not nearly as complete. This second story comes in the fourth and final part of the book and mostly revolves around the case she makes for Lincoln "remaking" the document into a statement of principals around equality. The epilogue includes a brief mention of Martin Luther King, and then the book is done. I felt there was much more of that second story to tell that she left untold. show less
Lists
Awards
You May Also Like
Associated Authors
Statistics
- Works
- 7
- Also by
- 8
- Members
- 2,044
- Popularity
- #12,578
- Rating
- 4.3
- Reviews
- 14
- ISBNs
- 32
- Favorited
- 3