James Madison and the Struggle for the Bill of Rights

De: Richard Labunski

Narrado por: Richard Poe

Richard Labunski offers a dramatic account of a time when the entire American experiment hung in the balance, only to be saved by the most unlikely of heroes, the diminutive and exceedingly shy James Madison. Here is a vividly written account of not one, but several major political struggles that changed the course of American history.

Labunski takes us inside the sweltering converted theater in Richmond, where for three grueling weeks, the soft-spoken Madison and the charismatic Patrick Henry fought over whether Virginia should ratify the Constitution. The stakes were enormous. If Virginia voted no, George Washington could not become president, New York might follow suit and reject the Constitution, and the young nation would be thrust into political chaos. But Madison won the day by a handful of votes, mollifying Anti-Federalist fears by promising to add a bill of rights to the Constitution.

To do this, Madison would have to win a seat in the First Congress. Labunski shows how the vengeful Henry prevented Madison's appointment to the Senate and then used his political power to ensure that Madison would run against his good friend, Revolutionary War hero James Monroe, in a House district teeming with political enemies. Overcoming great odds, Madison won by a few hundred votes, allowing him to attend the First Congress and sponsor the Bill of Rights.

Packed with colorful details about life in early America, this compelling and important narrative is the first serious book about Madison written in many years. It will return this under-appreciated patriot to his rightful place among the Founding Fathers and shed new light on a key turning point in our nation's history.

The “Pivotal Moments in American History” series seeks to unite the old and the new history, combining the insights and techniques of recent historiography with the power of traditional narrative. Each title has a strong narrative arc with drama, irony, suspense, and – most importantly – great characters who embody the human dimension of historical events. The general editors of “Pivotal Moments” are not just historians; they are popular writers themselves, and, in two cases, Pulitzer Prize winners: David Hackett Fischer, James M. McPherson, and David Greenberg. We hope you like your American History served up with verve, wit, and an eye for the telling detail!

©2006 Richard Labunski (P)2006 Recorded Books, LLC.

Reseñas de la Crítica

"Engaging....A lively look at the rickety early republic and Madison's great balancing act." (Publishers Weekly)

Excellent story of an under-appreciated Founding Father

Detailed review of how Madison found his way to endorsing the need for a bill of rights, writing the proposed amendments himself, and championing their passage by the congress and the states. Excellent biographical sketches of other prominent players in the lengthy political engagement and strong opposition to be overcome that eventually led to passage of what became our treasured Bill of Rights and the Constitution before it.

Very good reading throughout.

Excellent, but slightly diminished by bias

A very interesting telling of very important events, and very well written. I remove one star, however, because the author seems to have a pro-federalist bias which, for me, sometimes tainted my enjoyment of the book. While bias is inevitable, in a historical book I feel that the author should do their best to be even handed. In this case, Patrick Henry and the other anti-federalist are almost always described derisively, and their arguments are always described as being emotional or exaggerations or distortions or calumny etc., while the federalist arguments are rational and true. Undoubtably, the anti federalists did engage in hyperbole and emotional manipulation and I’m sure not all their arguments were sound—but it strains credulity that the federalist did not engage in the same and with equal measure. Yet the tone of this telling suggests that the low politicking was the exclusive domain of the anti federalists. Moreover, when describing the supposedly exaggerated claims of the anti federalists, the author doesn’t ever mention the fact that many (if not all) of their premises did bare out over the course of history and many of their predictions proved prescient—for example, that the federal government would grow into a behemoth at the expense of the states, violate individual rights (alien and sedition act, as one example), and diminish states rights (the very concept of states rights is not even mainstream any more, the demolition thereof having been so thorough), that the federalist argument that explicit protections were not needed because the gov had only the limited powers delegated by the constitution was invalidated by the necessary and proper clause and other implied powers which could be interpreted broadly as allowing almost anything (see Marburg v Madison and the subsequent history of constitutional case law, which have done nothing but steadily expand the scope of the federal government with implied power), and many other examples. Whether you think these occupancies are for the better or not, it nevertheless should have been mentioned that the anti-federalists were not merely exaggerating or misreading clauses of the constitution, but did in fact turn out to be right on many of their core concerns. You can be on the side of the constitution while still acknowledging that it’s opponents were not fools or naives and had valid concerns many of which history has validated.

Suggest the abridged version

Would you say that listening to this book was time well-spent? Why or why not?

The big picture information was great. But the author went into too much detail. This is the only book I have listened to at 3x speed.

How would you have changed the story to make it more enjoyable?

Reduce the amount of detail. It is not necessary to know the detailed weather, clothing, etc. to understand that transportation and communication were difficult in the 1700's.

Did James Madison and the Struggle for the Bill of Rights inspire you to do anything?

Appreciate the work that went into giving us a constitution that has lasted longer than most since its development.

Overlong and underinteresting

The title should be "Patrick Henry Was a Major Douchebag." The book spends more time talking about Henry, the principle antagonist, than it does about Madison, the protagonist. Even when he does talk about Madison he spends more time talking about his diarrhea and hemorrhoids than his political genius.

The chapter in American history when the Constitution was ratified was obviously pivotal, but all of the historical "what if?" discussion is ultimately fruitless. The author should have spent more time on the actual importance of the bill of rights. Amazingly, for such a long book he never finds time for even a cursory review of the actual bill of rights. Some amendments are discussed as they come up but the coverage is surprisingly sparse.

Overall, the book is accurate and provides insight into the ratification of the Constitution and later the bill of rights. However, the writing is very dry and repetitive and he spends too much time talking about Patrick Henry and the other anti-federalists.

The performance goes a long way to improve the subject, but the narrator can only do so much.

American History is All of a Sudden Interesting!

I've never been a big fan of American history, especially having to read through it. The author, Richard Labunski writes in a style that takes us on an interesting journey through the early formation days of the United States of America. He makes the various characters interesting and compelling. You can almost picture yourself right in the midst of all the goings-on, and that always makes for a good read.

Insightful and Compelling

What did you love best about James Madison and the Struggle for the Bill of Rights?

The ongoing description of the conflicts between Madison and Patrick Henry

Who was your favorite character and why?

Madison himself because of his willingness to risk everything to establish the Constitution

Which scene was your favorite?

The First Congress and the accounts of the oppressive weather conditions and the description of Federal Hall in New York

Did you have an extreme reaction to this book? Did it make you laugh or cry?

The manner in which so many dedicated themselves to the establishment of the Constitution and their love for their new country did move me to tears on several occasions.

Any additional comments?

This book, and its powerful narration by Richard Poe, filled in many of the gaps in my understanding of the effort to add the Bill of Rights to the Constitution. I found it very entertaining.

Was hoping for more.

Unfortunately, the reader of this book seems to belong to the 'It's history, so I must sound portentous' school of thought. That really detracted. But in addition, the writing style is repetitive. Over and over, we hear something like, 'The anti-Federalists did not agree with Madison,' or, 'The Federalists thought they could turn this to their advantage.' I'm not quite half-way through, but am stopping.

Watching Paint Dry...

A hard slog...page by page. Finally finished. Dinky (5'4") Madison was known for his compromising personality. The book outlines a detailed exposition of the enactment of the Bill of Rights and credits completion to Madison. Patrick Henry and Madison were political enemies as Hemry was a strong opponent of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights on the basis of states rights...an issue not solved until the completion of the civil war. Read/listen to this book only if you are a complete fanatic about political issues in the USA's formative years.

Early politics

Great reporting of relationships between Founding Fathers. I was intrigued by the similarities with modern-day politicians. I was happy that the hateful, backstabbers lost to patriotism.

Learned a lot, but lacking important info

I learned a lot about how the Bill of Rights came about which was great, especially that Madison and the Federalists were initially against it since they thought the constitution didn't need it since anything that wasn't enumerated in the constitution was for the states to decide which is important for today's discussion of the constitution. It was also very interesting to learn how the first amendment came about. However, I was extremely disappointed the author did not give any more detail about the issues behind the other amendments. I especially wanted to know how the second amendment changed from not having a standing militia to its current form. That would help us understand what it really means. I feel the author was too much of a coward to not talk about that considering how polarized the debate on it is. It is extremely important we know the background on this amendment.