The book goes through various legal topics pertaining to the creation of the American republic as we know it, with plenty of materials from the founders, a correct focus of James Madison analysis of the problems generated by the articles of confederation and various other technico-political pamphlets by Jefferson, Adams and more. One may have to read a linear history of the drafting of the constitution prior to reading this book as it focus on various topics, sometimes jumping discreetly from one topic to the other.

I read this book perhaps 20 years ago and it remains my favorite work of history. I particularly enjoyed the fact that Wood didn't limit his narrative solely to the political ideas that ultimately prevailed, but instead he gave ample time to competing strains of thought. His method necessarily leads to a slow-paced book, but ultimately it is much richer and satisfying.

Some chapters are more readable and relevant than others. Anything on the Appointments Clause is crucially relevant.

I did it! Took me 5 years, but I did it. One of the most challenging, but fascinating (yes, I’m a history nerd), books I’ve read. Now, I get to sit back and think about what the political theory that was created by the Revolutionary generation tells us about America today. Ahhhh, maybe I’ll just go back to Grisham so I don’t have to think so much — or at all.

Sweeping, lucid, and magnificent, but not for the faint of heart. I read every page of this 615-page behemoth, and I feel like I deserve a cookie. This is an intellectual history of the evolution of the ideas that were debated and thrown into the blender of the Constitutional Convention. Why is there a Senate? Is the Senate meant to be a body populated by a natural aristocracy of the propertied and talented? Why isn't there just one legislative body? How can one generation of "the People" bind future generations? Who makes up "the People"? Why can't legislatures just amend the Constitution? What is the supra-legislative body of a "Constitutional Convention"? From where does it derive its authority? Why was there a need for a Bill of Rights? Did setting out a delineated list of rights reduce the authority or natural rights that were originally retained by the people, given that the Constitution was simply a form of power of attorney to authorize representatives of the People to carry out certain carefully delineated functions?

Wood's prose is crisp and lucid, though much of the text is a masterfully arranged tissue of quotations from Hamilton, Madison, Benjamin Rush, Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, Noah Webster, et al. The bottom of each page has long string cites of quotations from source materials. The sheer amount of research put into this book borders on terrifying. But it is all put together in a clear and readable form.

That said, this is not a Joseph Ellis history of the early republic. There are no colorful anecdotes, no tidbits about shoe sizes, hobbies, nights out on the town, showy experiments with electricity, aptitude with the French language, etc. This is strictly a history of ideas, a history of the development of thinking about political science, checks and balances, tyrannies of majorities, of consolidated power, etc. So, in that sense, this book is clearly not for everyone. It's for you if you're deeply interested in the questions set out above in the first paragraph. Wood does a masterful job of charting the progress in the thinking of the Revolutionary generation, and how they came to their understandings of sovereignty, the purpose and role of a Constitution, the need for checks and balances, the nature of American society -- and human nature -- etc.
I found it to be a thrilling and deeply educational ride.

It must be noted, the book was published in 1969. That is not that long ago, and it is somewhat stunning that there is essentially no discussion of the issue of slavery or women or the reach of suffrage. Reading a history of the development of the Constitution today, that seems ridiculous. I understand that Wood dealt with these issues further in later works, but the total omission of these issues in this book is a massive hole.

This book is a great explanation of how we came to have the Constitution.

This book reminded me that I know so little about the things that I think I know well.

Wood follows the development of American political thinking on government from before the revolution through the ratification of the Constitution. He delves into the collective political psyche quoting dozens of founding fathers, Tories, British Whigs, historians, and Enlightenment philosophes.

If you want to understand why a Whig called himself a Whig in the colonies in the 18th century; if you want deep insight into how Madison, Jefferson, Hamilton and the other revolutionaries thought about the constitution; if you what was meant by "We, the People...," then you should read this book.

But only if you are serious, and only after you read (at least) John Locke's 2nd Treatise, a few biographies on the founding fathers (Hamilton, Sam Adams, John Adams, Robert Morris), the Federalist Papers, and the wikipedia pages on The Enlightenment, and Montesquieu.

You will also want to know the basics about the Continental Congresses, The Confederation Congress, and the Constitutional convention. A a very small amount of knowledge concerning the British Constitution would be helpful as well (Magna Charta, Petition of Right, English Bill of Rights-Glorious Revolution, Pariament-house of commons and house of Lords, Monarchy).

Seriously, do some reading before your read this book. It is well worth it.

With this book, Wood traces the shift in political thinking after the Declaration of independence to liberalism as distinct from republicanism. He writes in a new preface, "Just as monarchy was transformed rather than supplanted by republicanism, so too was republicanism transformed rather than supplanted by liberalism" (x). Wood is exceptional at painting a picture of how American political theory ultimately parted from classical political theory in the years following 1776. This, like his 'The Radicalism of the American Revolution,' is essential reading for anyone seeking to understand the uniqueness of the American experiment in political intellectual history.

According to author Wood, the inauguration of the American revolution antedates July 4, 1776. It begins with the instruction of the Continental Congress to the colonies to rewrite their constitutions. This book traces that process from 1776 through 1787 as regards, first, the colonies (inclusive of the briefly independent Vermont) and, second, the republic they formed under a federal constitution.

Between 1776 and 1787 there was a great shift in American political thought, an ideological revolution. Central to it was the idea of sovereignty. In the beginning most thought about the British model. In the end, in the debate between Federalists and Anti-federalists over the constitution, they came up with a uniquely American conception, that being of popular sovereignty. While the mixed government of Britain, the government of Commons, Lords and Monarch, relied much upon tradition, even divine right, the mixed government of America, that of House, Senate, Executive and Judiciary--and these on both the state and federal levels--bespoke entirely, however mediately, the will of voting citizens, the foundation and source of all authority.

This impressive work of scholarship is definitely not for everyone. Following 15 polities (the 13 colonies, Vermont and the federation), the principal debates within them and the precedents they referred to is daunting to the non-specialist. The thrust of Wood's argument, supported by these examples, is, however, clear enough.

Personally, I was introduced to this field in high school, one of my papers for the required U.S. Government class being a critical review of Charles Beard's economic analysis versus McDonald's critique of same. For what it's worth, Wood sides with McDonald.

This book highlights, among many other things, the differences between the mindsets of the American people at the beginning of the revolution and the confirmation of the Constitution. The battle between aristocracy and an egalitarian society, the Federalist versus the Antifederalists. Should we have a confederation of states or a strong central government.
The book took quite a bit of concentration for my limited brain, finding myself rereading paragraphs more than once to get the meaning. but the time spent was worth it. Certainly a great book on the development of the country during and after the revolution.

Fantastic, but *dense.* But no one has been more significant in shaping our understanding of the American founding.

This is a fantastic book on the political philosophy of the new American republic. It's got a pretty dry narrative (if there's even one at all). However, his understanding of Whig, Republican, Federalist, Anti-Federalist and other political philosophies remains second to none, over half a century later.