Richard Beeman Plain Honest Men Analysis

Starting on May 25th of 1787 and lasting until September 17th of 1787 the creation and ratification of the United States Constitution is an integral part of American history. Moreover, the study of American history tends to neglect mentioning the “behind the scenes” that progressed the creation of America’s federated Constitutional Republic. “Plain, Honest Men: The Making of the American Constitution” by Richard Beeman is designed to demonstrate the diversity amongst Founding Fathers’ beliefs, intentions, and contributions to the Constitution and government. The narrative styled historical nonfiction follows the Constitutional Conventions of the late 1700’s including detailed debates surrounding slavery, representation, treasury, and ultimately
Whilst the text has a variety of discussed topics, the author primarily focuses on the summer of 1787 where America’s Founding Fathers laid the foundation for the U.S. Constitution. Beeman provides specific dates in which conversations were held, which he can as a result of the impeccable notetaking done by James Madison. Madison will ultimately write the finished Constitution and therefore, most of the text centers around his ideas and contribution. Moreover, it is possible that Beeman focuses on Madison because there is limited information of other contributions: this is not a bias by Beeman but does show a disparity in multiple
Prior to reading “Plain, Honest Men” I had only known that the conference happened and as a result America had a Constitution. Therefore, to fully understand Beeman’s accuracy of the events I had to corroborate with two sources, one being a history professor that directed me to a report on the text done by FEE: Foundation for Economic Education. The article claims that Beeman’s work neglects to mention a particularly important turning point that occurred on June 19th when Alexander Hamilton “defense of the Convention’s right to violate the representatives’ instructions in such a great emergency.” Additionally, this review pointed out to me the lapses in Beeman’s objectivity. For example, Beeman uses figurative language that, while easy to captivate and engage readers, is full of nationalism and pathos that detracts from the formality of the text. The use of first and second person pronouns occur throughout the work to really make the text personal for readers are consistent within titles of chapters as well such as “We Are Now at Full Stop.” Stylistically these chapter titles are suiting and assist in the narrative of the text, but as the article indicates, this creates a gap between the narrative style and the proclaimed historical nonfiction