The Fathers of the Constitution: A Chronicle of the Establishment of the Union — A Reader’s Guide

Diction and Discontent in the Opening Chapters

Farrand's choice of words reveals a critical stance toward the post-Revolutionary period. He describes the American population as containing a "large element of undesirables" and characterizes migration as driven by "discontent," which he calls "a healthful sign" but also a source of discomfort for conservative communities. This language is notably sharper than the celebratory tone common in early twentieth-century histories. Farrand does not shy from portraying the new nation as struggling for respect, using phrases like "lack of respect" and "unwelcome member" to underscore the gap between revolutionary ideals and international reality. The excerpts show a writer willing to qualify patriotic narratives with pragmatic assessments of social composition and diplomatic standing.

The Convention's Verbal Maneuvering

In describing the Constitutional Convention, Farrand pays close attention to the delegates' own language and reasoning. He reports that the method of choosing the President was debated with specific phrases: "eventual election" was transferred to the House, and the designers expected that "nineteen times in twenty" the small states would choose from candidates named by large states. Farrand also notes the proposed title for Washington—"His High Mightiness, the President of the United States and Protector of their Liberties"—which he presents as indicative of contemporary conceptions of the office. The author does not simply list compromises; he highlights the precise wording that delegates used to reconcile interests, such as the distinction between legislative election (barring reëlection) and popular election (permitting it). These details ground the narrative in the delegates' own vocabulary.

Haste and Revision in the Final Days

Farrand emphasizes the hurried atmosphere near the Convention's close, noting "evidences of haste" and a tendency to "ride rough-shod" over delegates demanding modifications. He specifies that on September 8 a Committee of Style was appointed, chosen by ballot and composed exclusively of friends of the Constitution: Johnson, Hamilton, Morris, Madison, and King. The greatest credit for the final document's phrasing, Farrand writes, is probably due to Morris, "whose powers of expression were so greatly admired." This focus on the revision process—the "stile" and arrangement of articles—shows Farrand treating the Constitution as a crafted text, not merely a political settlement. The committee's composition and the attribution of stylistic credit are specific observations that illuminate how language was deliberately shaped.

Unspoken Assumptions and the Presidency

Farrand draws attention to what the Convention did not discuss: the question of a third term was never considered, and no one seems anxious about the first election because Washington was the presumed choice. The author notes that from the moment a single executive was agreed upon, "they also agreed upon the man for the position." This inference—based on "the trend of conversation and even of debate on the floor"—is carefully limited to what the excerpts support. Farrand does not claim to know Washington's private thoughts, but he uses the delegates' public discourse to argue that the presidency was "frankly an experiment" whose success would depend on the first election. The observation that the Convention later congratulated itself on the electoral method shows Farrand's interest in the delegates' own retrospective satisfaction.

Farrand's chronicle rewards readers who attend to his precise diction and his attention to the delegates' own phrasing. Rather than a triumphalist account, it offers a grounded examination of how language—from committee reports to proposed titles—shaped the Constitution. Readers will find that the author's choices in vocabulary and emphasis reveal as much about the period's attitudes as the events themselves.

Reading about the delegates haggling over every comma, I remembered sitting in a library, listening to arguments for Home Rule. Farrand shows how a nation is built word by fragile word. There was the same patience in that old speech book, The Speeches (In Full) of the Rt. Hon. W. E. Gladstone, M.P., and William O'Brien, M.P., on Home Rule, Delivered in Parliament, Feb. 16 and 17, 1888. — Reading Companion, the same stubborn hope in a sentence.