Page
A Brilliant Solution: From the Founding to the Present
For the United States, the years after the Revolution were celebratory for the citizens enjoying their new freedoms and painful for those involved in the government. The lack of a strong central government created a divided country, with men loyal to the state rather than the nation. From 1776 to 1787, the new nation debated as separate states over interstate conflicts, how to dissolve the economic crisis, and maintain a military without allowing any separate person, group or state access to its power. Under the Articles of Confederation, the central government had no power to enforce anything as a nation; each state controlled itself and was in a political battle to control every other, with the nation as their casualty. Under the Articles, every hope for a future of the United States seemed impossible. Many realized that only a unified country could fix the country’s problems. In A Brilliant Solution, Carol Berkin reveals the conflicts and compromises that characterized the drafting of the Constitution. Berkin portrays the founding fathers as people not demigods, describes the solution the Constitution became and analyzes the current US, debating whether the founders of this government would approve of how it has evolved over the two hundred-twenty years following the Constitution to the present.
In elementary school, Americans are taught that intellectuals with the ideal views of morals, equal human rights and justice came together to form the United States. The ‘Founding Fathers’ are viewed as men that can not be surpassed as long as the government they began stands; they are the human-gods of the American past. In A Brilliant Solution, Berkin paints the fifty-five framers as men, “imperfect, exasperating, but often admirable. . .” (Berkin 49). Many had studied law, were wealthy, educated, and had political experience. Few men came from obscure backgrounds but all contributed something incredibly brilliant. From the lively Franklin who arrived in “his luxurious sedan chair, carried upon the soldiers of four prisoners taken from a nearby jail” (Berkin 46) to Alexander Hamilton and James Madison, dedicated nationalists, the party was mindful of their reputations, as political leaders and conspicuous framers of a new government. Each member of the congress was painfully aware that by sharing their honest opinions their reputations could be destroyed. Thus the records were not copied or spoken of outside of the delegates. The secrecy of the convention was complete. The reasons varied from foreign diplomats that would be eager to report home on the country’s economic, political and social problems to the danger their true opinions could reflect on the delegate’s own prestige and political futures. The greatest reason was that none could, “vote ‘yea’ on overthrowing the government if the newspapers carried word of it the next day. . .” (Berkin 65). Only with secrecy could there be an honest discussion between the greatest men of the nation and only honest discussion could find a solution for the crisis facing the nation. As Berkin suggests, the problem was not if the secrecy was necessary but if it was possible. The delegates would have to censor their speech at the taverns each evening, and carefully ignore the subject of their days in letters home to wives, brothers and friends. Rumors spread, speculation was rampant but the proceedings of the congress remained confidential. If not discretion, than only self-preservation kept the meetings private. Overall, Berkin explores each delegate’s beliefs, life, and difficulties during the convention. She shows that they were simple humans with some incredible strengths and fatal flaws. Their arguments and solutions were not perfect. The delegates debated for a year, but the solutions they agreed upon lasted the United States for a longer time than any could have originally hoped or thought.
