Charles A. Beard's An Economic Interpretation of the United States Constitution was a work of such powerful persuasiveness as to alter the course of American historiography. No historian who followed in studying the making of the Constitution was entirely free from Beard's radical interpretation of the document as serving the economic interests of the Framers as members of the propertied class. Forrest McDonald's We the People was the first major challenge to Beard's thesis. This superbly researched and documented volume restored the Constitution as the work of principled and prudential men. It did much to invalidate the crude economic determinism that had become endemic in the writing of American history. We the People fills in the details that Beard had overlooked in his fragmentary book. MacDonald's work is based on an exhaustive comparative examination of the economic biographies of the 55 members of the Constitutional Convention and the 1,750 members of the state ratifying conventions. His conclusion is that on the basis of evidence, Beard's economic interpretation does not hold. McDonald demonstrates conclusively that the interplay of conditioning or determining factors at work in the making of the Constitution was extremely complex and cannot be rendered intelligible in terms of any single system of interpretation. McDonald's classic work, while never denying economic motivation as a factor, also demonstrates how the rich cultural and political mosaic of the colonies was an independent and dominant factor in the decision making that led to the first new nation. In its pluralistic approach to economic factors and analytic richness, We the People is both a major work of American history and a significant document in the history of ideas. It continues to be an essential volume for historians, political scientists, economists, and American studies specialists.

In The Presidency Then and Now, leading political scientists and historians assess the development of the presidency and its role in today's political landscape. The questions addressed in this wide-ranging volume include: How has the doctrine of separation of powers evolved? How have presidential campaigns and presidential oratory influenced the constitutional character of the institution? How does the scandal-driven press coverage of the post-Vietnam and post-Watergate presidency compare with the partisan press of the early republic? Among other topics, the contributors examine the early precedents and modern manifestations of the executive veto, executive privilege, and presidential use of force doctrine, and chart the shift from a constitutionally circumspect and constrained chief executive toward the modern notion of a plebiscitary presidency. The Presidency Then and Now assesses several key trends in presidential leadership including the recent movement toward a policy-centered presidency in which detailed policy development has at times supplanted broad vision and historically informed judgment. Other essays address such topics as the transformation of the Cabinet from a body whose members possessed stature equal to the president to a largely symbolic group that has been replaced in its advisory capacity by the White House staff. The Presidency Then and Now makes a case for returning to constitutional, reasoned deliberation and replacing modern fixation on 'celebrity' status with the founders' notion of 'stature.' By drawing comparisons between the old and the new, The Presidency Then and Now offers timely and incisive insights that will appeal not only to scholars of the presidency but to historians and general readers interested in the constitutional foundations, philosophical debates, and key political developments that have affected the presidential office over time.

Charles A. Bear's An Economic Interpretation of the United States Constitution was a work of such powerful persuasiveness as to alter the course of American historiography. No historian who followed in studying the making of the Constitution was entirely free from Beard's radical interpretation of the document as serving the economic interests of the Framers as members of the propertied class. Forrest McDonald's We the People was the first major challenge to Beard's thesis. This superbly researched and documented volume restored the Constitution as the work of principled and prudential men. It did much to invalidate the crude economic determinism that had become endemic in the writing of American history.

We the People fills in the details that Beard had overlooked in his fragmentary book. MacDonald's work is based on an exhaustive comparative examination of the economic biographies of the 55 members of the Constitutional Convention and the 1,750 members of the state ratifying conventions. His conclusion is that on the basis of evidence, Beard's economic interpretation does not hold. McDonald demonstrates conclusively that the interplay of conditioning or determining factors at work in the making of the Constitution was extremely complex and cannot be rendered intelligible in terms of any single system of interpretation.

McDonald's classic work, while never denying economic motivation as a factor, also demonstrates how the rich cultural and political mosaic of the colonies was an independent and dominant factor in the decision making that led to the first new nation. In its pluralistic approach to economic factors and analytic richness, We the People is both a major work of American history and a significant document in the history of ideas. It continues to be an essential volume for historians, political scientists, economists, and American studies specialists.

Two series of letters that have been described as "the wellsprings of nearly all ensuing debate on the limits of governmental power in the United States" are collected in this volume. The writings include "Letters from a Farmer in Pennsylvania"--the "farmer" being the gifted and courageous statesman John Dickinson and "Letters from the Federal Farmer"--he being the redoubtable Richard Henry Lee of Virginia. Together, Dickinson and Lee addressed the whole remarkable range of issues provoked by the crisis of British policies in North America, a crisis from which a new nation emerged from an overreaching empire. Dickinson wrote his "Letters" in opposition to the Townshend Acts by which the British Parliament in 1767 proposed to reorganize colonial customs. The publication of the "Letters" was, as Philip Davidson believes, "the most brilliant literary event of the entire Revolution." Forrest McDonald adds, "Their impact and their circulation were unapproached by any publication of the revolutionary period except Thomas Paine's "Common Sense."" Lee wrote in 1787 as an Anti-Federalist, and his "Letters" gained, as Charles Warren has noted, "much more widespread circulation and influence" than even the heralded "Federalist Papers." Both sets of "Letters" deal, McDonald points out, "with the same question: the never-ending problem of the distribution of power in a broad and complex federal system." The Liberty Fund second edition includes a new preface by the editor in which he responds to research since the original edition of 1962.Forrest McDonald is Professor of History at the University of Alabama and author also of "E Pluribus Unum, " among other works.

""An extraordinary book.""

--Gordon S. Wood, Brown University
Having won independence from England, America faced a new question: Would this be politically one nation, or would it not? "E Pluribus Unum" is a spirited look at how that question came to be answered.That the American people introduced a governmental system adequate to check the very forces unleashed by the Revolution--this, writes Professor McDonald, "was the miracle of the age. . . . The French, the Russians, the Italians, the Germans, all the planet's peoples in their turn, would become so unrestrained as to lose contact with sanity. The Americans might have suffered a similar history had they followed the lead of those who, in 1787 and 1788, spoke in the name . . . of popular 'rights.' But there were giants on the earth in those days, and they spoke in the name of the nation. . . ."Forrest McDonald is Professor of History at the University of Alabama.

Forrest McDonald is considered one of the most original and influential historians writing on the American Founding period. With interviewer Bill Jersey, McDonald shares reflections on his life and examines his intellectual formation in Texas in the 1950s, which led him to write "We The People: Economic Origins of the Constitution". When published, his landmark book challenged the long-standing theory proposed by Charles A Beard. He also exposes the drama of the American cultural turbulence of the 1960s through his experiences at Brown University and Wayne State University. McDonald discloses the motivations and theories behind several of his most celebrated books, including Novus Ordo Seclorum: The Intellectual Origins of the Constitution and E Pluribus Unum: The Formation of the American Republic, 1776-1790, which is published by Liberty Fund. In this DVD Forrest McDonald discusses his radical reinterpretations of Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson, among other founding figures. From his home in Alabama, he speaks about his sense of the nature of the American Republic, the role of the Presidency, the status of the Bill of Rights, the interaction between economics and history, and the effect his reading of history has had on the field and his legacy. Its approximate running time is: 59 minutes.

Two series of letters that have been considered as the wellspring of nearly all ensuing debate on the limits of governmental power in the United states are collected in this volume. Together, the two writers' addresses a range of issues provoked by the crisis of British policies in North America. John Dickinson wrote his letters in opposition to the Townshend Acts by which the British parliament in 1767 proposed to reorganize colonial customs. Richard Henry Lee wrote as an anti-federalist. Both sets of letters deal with the problem of the distribution of power in a broad and complex federal system.

In this volume, Forrest McDonald admits that George Washington was no executive genius, and notes that a number of his advisers and cabinet members were considerably more important in formulating programs and policies than he was. Nevertheless, he maintains that, but for Washington, the office of president might not exist today. McDonald asserts that Washington's reputation as a man of integrity, dignity, candor, and republican virtue was well-deserved, and that he contributed best by serving as a symbol.

The book covers the central concerns of Washington's administration: a complex tangle of war debts; the organization of the Bank of the United States; geographical and social factionalism; the emergence of strong national partisan politics; adjustments in federal-state relations; the effort to remain neutral in the face of European tumult; the opening of the Mississippi River; and the removal of the threat of Indians and British in the Northwest Territory. McDonald also describes the rivalry between Washington's two most important department heads, Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton.

Jefferson Lecturer and Pulitzer Prize finalist Forrest McDonald is widely recognized as one of our most respected and challenging historians of the Constitution. He has been called brilliant, provocative, controversial, passionate, pugnacious, and crafty in intellectual combat. Whatever the label, he remains unsurpassed as a commentator on the American founding.

"Novus Ordo Seclorum," his best-known work, was hailed as "magisterial," "a tour-de-force," "the American history book of the decade," "the best single book on the origins of the U.S. Constitution," and was featured on Bill Moyers's highly praised PBS series "In Search of the Constitution." McDonald now applies his considerable talents to a study of another venerable institution-the American presidency.

Writing at the height of his powers as an intellectual historian, McDonald explores how and why the presidency has evolved into such a complex and powerful institution, unlike any other in the world. Scores of republics have come into existence during the last two centuries and many have adopted constitutions similar to our own. But, as McDonald persuasively shows, the American presidency is unique-no other nation has a leadership position that combines the seemingly incongruous roles of ceremonial head of state and chief executive magistrate.

Lacking an acceptable role model, McDonald explains, the founding fathers constructed their idea of the presidency from sources as diverse as the Bible, Machiavelli, John Locke, the Ancient Greeks and Romans, the laws of England, and the early colonial and state government experiences. So many influences, he suggests, guaranteed a substantial degree of persistent ambiguity and contradiction in the office.

McDonald chronicles the presidency's creation, implementation, and evolution and explains why it's still working today despite its many perceived afflictions. Along the way, he provides trenchant commentary upon the Constitutional Convention, ratification debates, presidencies of Washington and Jefferson, presidential administration and leadership, presidential-congressional conflicts, the president as chief architect of foreign policy, and the president as myth and symbol. He also analyzes the enormous gap between what we've come to expect of presidents and what they can reasonably hope to accomplish.

Ambitious, comprehensive, and engaging, this is the best single-volume study of an institution that has become troubled and somewhat troublesome yet, in McDonald's words, "has been responsible for less harm and more good than perhaps any other secular institution in history." It will make a fine and necessary companion for understanding the presidency as it moves into its third century.

A Biography

"What Mr. McDonald's book does, with exceptional skill and learning, is to re-examine Hamilton's policies as secretary of the treasury. To this task the author brings a masterful knowsledge of the politics of the period. . . . He brilliantly demonstrates how William Blackstone, David Hume and Jacques Necker affected Hamilton's thought. Finally, Mr. McDonald . . . gives the clearest exposition that I have ever seen of just what Hamilton's financial policies were and how they worked." —David Herbert Donald, New York Times Book Review

"Never has the first secretary of the treasury received such a skillful, passionate and sustained panegyric to his abilities and accomplishments. . . . There will be no neutral readers of McDonald's provocative biography. It will unsettle and enlighten, outrage and educate. There is much to think about here." —G. S. Rowe, Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography

"Alexander Hamilton is distinguised by the author's lively style, insights, and originality. . . . He presents a new and altogether convincing account of the origins and development of his subject's political and economic theories. . . . [His] exposition of Hamilton's program as secretary of the treasury is outstanding. . . . [Readers] are unlikely to find a more lucid and informed account of the entire subject." —Harold C. Syrett, Journal of American History

In this volume, Forrest McDonald admits that George Washington was no executive genius, and notes that a number of his advisers and cabinet members were considerably more important in formulating programs and policies than he was. Nevertheless, he maintains that, but for Washington, the office of president might not exist today. McDonald asserts that Washington's reputation as a man of integrity, dignity, candor, and republican virtue was well-deserved, and that he contributed best by serving as a symbol.

The book covers the central concerns of Washington's administration: a complex tangle of war debts; the organization of the Bank of the United States; geographical and social factionalism; the emergence of strong national partisan politics; adjustments in federal-state relations; the effort to remain neutral in the face of European tumult; the opening of the Mississippi River; and the removal of the threat of Indians and British in the Northwest Territory. McDonald also describes the rivalry between Washington's two most important department heads, Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton.

In this business biography, McDonald (retired, U. of Alabama) traces the career of Samuel Insull, who rose from his position as Thomas Edison's private secretary to become the head of an electric utility empire, only to have to flee to Greece in 1932 due to his indictment for fraud. The biography explores how Insull built his empire, his relations

This is the first major interpretation of the framing of the Constitution to appear in more than two decades. Forrest McDonald, widely considered one of the foremost historians of the Constitution and of the early national period, reconstructs the intellectual world of the Founding Fathers--including their understanding of law, history political philosophy, and political economy, and their firsthand experience in public affairs--and then analyzes their behavior in the Constitutional Convention of 1787 in light of that world. No one has attempted to do so on such a scale before. McDonald's principal conclusion is that, though the Framers brought a variety of ideological and philosophical positions to bear upon their task of building a "new order of the ages," they were guided primarily by theiy own experience, their wisdom, and their common sense.

"A witty and energetic study of the ideas and passions of the Framers."--"New York Times Book Review"

"Bristles with wit and intellectual energy."--"Christian Science Monitor"

"A masterpiece. McDonald's status as an interpreter of the Constitution is unequalled--magisterial."--"National Review"

"Cracker Culture" is a provocative study of social life in the Old South that probes the origin of cultural differences between the South and the North throughout American history. Among Scotch-Irish settlers the term "Cracker" initially designated a person who boasted, but in American usage the word has come to designate poor whites. McWhiney uses the term to define culture rather than to signify an economic condition. Although all poor whites were Crackers, not all Crackers were poor whites; both, however, were Southerners.The author insists that Southerners and Northerners were never alike. American colonists who settled south and west of Pennsylvania during the 17th and 18th centuries were mainly from the "Celtic fringe" of the British Isles. The culture that these people retained in the New World accounts in considerable measure for the difference between them and the Yankees of New England, most of whom originated in the lowlands of the southeastern half of the island of Britain. From their solid base in the southern backcountry, Celts and their "Cracker" descendants swept westward throughout the antebellum period until they had established themselves and their practices across the Old South. Basic among those practices that determined their traditional folkways, values, norms, and attitudes was the herding of livestock on the open range, in contrast to the mixed agriculture that was the norm both in southeastern Britain and in New England. The Celts brought to the Old South leisurely ways that fostered idleness and gaiety. Like their Celtic ancestors, Southerners were characteristically violent; they scorned pacifism; they considered fights and duels honorable and consistently ignored laws designed to control their actions. In addition, family and kinship were much more important in Celtic Britain and the antebellum South than in England and the Northern United States. Fundamental differences between Southerners and Northerners shaped the course of antebellum American history; their conflict in the 1860s was not so much brother against brother as culture against culture.

In eleven provocative essays Forrest McDonald and his wife, Ellen Shapiro McDonald, cover a wide range of the intellectual, political, military, and social history of the eighteenth century to present both a picture of the age in which our Constitution was crafted and commentary on developments that have caused American government to stray from the Founders' principles. Appearing here in print for the first time is Forrest McDonald's widely acclaimed 1987 NEH Jefferson lecture, "The Intellectual World of the Founding Fathers." In other essays the McDonalds examine such topics as the writing of the Constitution, the central role of such little-known Founders as John Dickinson ("the most underrated of all the Founders"), and the constitutional principles of Alexander Hamilton. Also presented is an exploration of the ritualistic aspects of eighteenth-century warfare and an analysis of Shays' Rebellion as a tax revolt. In chapters focusing on the separation of powers, the political economy, and the death of federalism, the McDonalds argue the urgent need to "return to limited government under law."

Thomas Jefferson occupies a special niche in the hagiology of American Founding Fathers. His name is invoked for a staggering range of causes; statists and libertarians, nationalists and States' righters, conservatives and radicals all claim his blessing. In this book, Forrest McDonald examines Jefferson's performance as the nation's leader, evaluating his ability as a policy-maker, administrator, and diplomat.

He delineates, carefully and sympathetically, the Jeffersonian ideology and the agrarian ideal that underlay it; he traces the steps by which the ideology was transformed into a program of action; and he concludes that the interplay between the ideology and the action accounted both for the unparalleled success of Jefferson's first term in office, and for the unmitigated failure of the second term.

Jefferson as president was a man whose ideological commitments prevented him from reversing calamitous policy stances, a man who could be ruthless in suppressing civil rights when it was politically expedient, a man who was rarely, in the conventional sense of the word, a Jeffersonian. McDonald's portrait reveals him to be at once greater, simpler, and more complexly human than the mere "apostle of liberty" or "spokesman for democracy" that his adulators have relegated him to being.