Reddit Reddit reviews Decision in Philadelphia: The Constitutional Convention of 1787

We found 3 Reddit comments about Decision in Philadelphia: The Constitutional Convention of 1787. Here are the top ones, ranked by their Reddit score.

History
Books
American History
United States History
U.S. Revolution & Founding History
Decision in Philadelphia: The Constitutional Convention of 1787
Check price on Amazon

3 Reddit comments about Decision in Philadelphia: The Constitutional Convention of 1787:

u/ThePeanutsAndTheCage · 16 pointsr/NeutralPolitics

If you're going to read the Constitution and the Federalist Papers, I think you also need to at least skim:

  1. The Articles of Confederation

  2. The Anti-Federalist Papers


    I think there's a dangerous tendency to view the founding documents as if God gave them directly to James Madison, when in fact the Constitution was fundamentally a reaction to problems with the Articles of Confederation, and faced some significant opposition at the time.

    I also think the Constitutional Convention notes are super interesting, although this is getting pretty far afield from OP's question. http://teachingamericanhistory.org/convention/summary/

    u/eplinx, to help place all these primary documents in context, you might also read something like Decision in Philadelphia, which basically turns the Constitutional Convention into a story.
u/owlparliamentarian · 2 pointsr/todayilearned

A beginner may want to start with "Decision at Philadelphia," which is one of the more readably written accounts of the convention, and doesn't sacrifice too much for it. If you want to go more in-depth, find something which contains or at least excerpts James Madison's own notes-- for example, "The Constitutional Convention: A Narrative History from the Notes of James Madison," which I believe takes the notes themselves and presents them in a somewhat more readable format.

u/yo2sense · 1 pointr/history

This. Hamilton preferred an even stronger central government but this was the best he was going to get so he agreed to sign. Technically signing wasn't an endorsement. The last article was carefully written so that the signers were merely witnessing that it had been adopted by the unanimous consent of the states present as opposed to all of the men in each state delegation. This was an attempt to get the dissenters add their names as well.

Miracle at Philadelphia is widely praised and very readable but it is also filiopietistic. It's worth the read but for a fuller understanding of the constitional convention I recommend Decision at Philadlephia.