Miracle At Philadelphia

Explain how the historical context of the time shaped both support for and opposition to the Constitution.

How do the descriptions of life in Philadelphia add to the drama of the Convention itself? Do these details contribute to any broader themes, or do they just help provide a more three-dimensional portrait of the events?

Bowen’s attitude toward the Anti-Federalists is almost always critical, bordering on hostile. Does this detract from the narrative, or does her treatment of the Convention as a “miracle” require that they play the role of antagonists?

Why did Alexander Hamilton play such a minor role in the Convention itself, when his work before and after was so significant? Was his speech simply careless, or part of a broader strategy?

Roger Sherman introduced his compromise a full month before it was ultimately accepted. Why did it take so long, and what changed along the way to facilitate its acceptance?

The question of representation in Congress was clearly the most difficult to resolve, but what were some of the other major areas of debate in the Convention? What did they have in common with the representation question? Why did other issues, which might seem similarly important, not receive as much attention?

Bowen says very little about The Federalist Papers, the most famous series of essays championing the Constitution. What do you think explains her omission? Would the narrative be enhanced by spending greater time on those essays? Why or why not?

How was the Constitution able to achieve ratification, even when it appeared that there were large majorities in many states on the Anti-Federalist side? What structural advantages did the Federalists have?