Summary Of The People Debate The Constitution

In writing this book, Maier did not write from the premise of “for” or “against” the Constitution, or even “Federalist” versus “Anti-Federalist, ” in fact, Maier refused to use the term “Anti-Federalist” as it was a term she felt was used disdainfully by the Federalist and she did not want to appear as supporting a particular side. Maier was not presenting a theory or hypothesis relating to ratification, instead she wrote this book in a narrative style. Maier’s historical methodology was in presenting the ratification process as a story – a story that occurred in many places, at the same time, and full of many interesting characters. According to Maier, “The focus of the state conventions raised a…fundamental issue: how to establish a clear story line for an event that happened in thirteen places, sometimes simultaneously.” As her subtitle tells us, The People Debate the Constitution, she is writing about the people who are debating this important document; people who are voicing opinions while pacing within the ratification debate halls, sitting in local taverns and parlors, or standing on street …show more content…
Maier’s story is of the value of a deliberative and informed ratification process and how the foundation of our government is based on moderation and compromise. The characters in her story are both favorites in colonial and revolutionary history and obscure individuals who for a moment in time stepped onto our country’s stage, the founding drama of our new nation. These characters ranged from George Washington, James Madison, and Patrick Henry to lesser-known personalities like William Findley from Pennsylvania and James Iredell from North Carolina. With her narrative style, Maier was able to take an interesting subject that contains a great deal of information and present it in such a way that one learns about the state ratifying conventions without putting forth a great deal of