On April 7, 2019, President Donald Trump effectively fired Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen. In the aftermath, plenty of people debated whether the president should have fired Nielsen — but no one questioned whether he COULD. That silence, it turns out, is among the great many things America owes to the First Congress meeting from 1789 to 1791.

In a thoroughly readable history, Bordewich narrates the events great and small of the first two years of the U.S. Constitution, everything from famous debates to the illnesses and carriage-wrecks that America's leading statesmen endured during their attempts to establish a new government.

Personally, I found the lesser-known incidents described in the book's first half more fascinating than the better-known debates the Congress took up in its second and third sessions (the federal assumption of state debts, the battles over the site of the nation's capital, the creation of the Bank of the United States). The issue of presidential firing power is a key example — today, we take it for granted that political appointees serve at the pleasure of the president. But the members of the First Congress definitely did not. Many argued that it was the Senate, which confirmed appointees, that had the power to remove them. Others said that appointees could only be removed by impeachment, the only remedy specified in the constitution. It was only after a fierce debate during the creation of initial federal agencies that Congress settled on a president's power to remove people he appointed.

Similarly, while many people know that the early Congress passed the constitutional amendments that became the Bill of Rights, and history buffs know that the First Congress actually passed 12 amendments, one of which was approved much later and one is still eligible for ratification, Bordewich lays out the entire tortuous history: the hundreds of proposed amendments Congress dealt with, many of which aimed at wholesale transformation of the Constitution; James Madison's proposed list of not 10 or 12 but more than 20 amendments, including a long preamble to the Constitution; the fight over whether amendments should inserted into the Constitution or tagged on to the end; and the committees and deals that ultimately shaped the amendments Americans know today.

Bordewich also captures the flavor of key characters, from the unstoppable drive of Alexander Hamilton to the political dominance of James Madison, who at one point was both essentially at the helm of both the House of Representatives and the presidency as Washington's closest advisor, highlighted most amusingly in the time when Madison wrote Washington's address to Congress and then wrote the House's response back to Washington.

Above all, the debates Bordewich chronicles remain relevant today, both in substance and in form. Many of the issues dividing Americans today were present at the very beginning. The First Congress could be sharply divided over key issues — but found a way to compromise on the biggest ones when push came to shove. Today's Americans can find both inspiration and warning in this grubby and complex history of the precedents set at the very beginning of the American Republic. ( )

"First Congress" is a very readable book about the men who created a government from one sheet of parchment—the Constitution. For those who romanticize this time period as one of congeniality and good-will, author Fergus Bordewich illustrates otherwise. Virtually nothing in the first Congress came easy. But those senators and representatives knew that every step they took would set precedent for generations to come.

Highly recommended! ( )

I struggled to get into this book - it's a bit dry at times - but it's well worth reading for its take on how the first congress met, functioned, and passed legislation we now look back on as foundational to the American government. I particularly appreciated the discussion of the crafting and passing of the Bill of Rights - these amendments are so oft often in contemporary discussions that's its strange to think that James Madison originally worded the first amendment differently and that certain members of congress felt the Bill of Rights to be unnecessary. For anyone interested in American history or politics, this is definitely a book to check out. ( )

5464. The First Congress How James Madison, George Washington, and a Group of Extraordinary Men Invented the Government, by Fergus M. Bordewich (read 23 Apr 2017) This is an extraordinarily well-constructed book and a delight to read as it carefully sets forth the events related o the first Congress--which began in March 1789 and concluded on 3 March 1791. The discussion of the construction and adoption of the amendments which we now know as the Bill of Rights is expertly told and full of insight. In view of the extraordinary role it plays in our constitutional history it is amazing how minor some of the members fo the First Congress viewed it as they considered and adopted it. There is not a dull page in the book and it far exceeded my expectations. ( )

When one considers the lack of productivity of today’s Congress, stalemated by ideological divisions that thwart even the most modest compromise on policy matters, the accomplishments of the first Congress seem utterly superlative. That Congress convened with no precedent to guide it and went forth with only the barest outline of structure contained in the newly ratified Constitution. The other branches of government existed only faintly; there was no executive government apart from a president and vice-president and no Supreme Court in place or inferior courts even in existence. The future of the nascent republic hinged on the ability of the body to invent the government. In this it largely succeeded. But, to conclude that the significance of its charge obviated the philosophical differences of its members would be erroneous. There were deeply contrasting and sharply contentious perspectives on the place and role of centralized government versus that of the states. The Federalists leaned heavily toward strong national authority that would bind together the often conflicting self-interests of the states and position the nation to grow in strength among nations of the world. The anti-Federalists were deeply suspicious of surrendering state sovereignty, fearing that a powerful national government would mirror the monarchical system the country had so recently shed.

The challenges facing the Congress and the country were great. A principle concern was the complete lack of revenue to pay for national priorities. There was strong opposition to direct taxation and relying on the states to remit funds to the national government had proved nearly fruitless during the Revolution and the time of confederacy. The solution was found in enacting tariffs to be collected by the treasury, an approach that necessitated establishing the first bureaucracy of customs agents. The judicial system prescribed in the Constitution specified only the Supreme Court; the entire body of inferior courts would need to be put in place. There were sharp policy differences on the power of federal courts viz. state courts and state law that had to be resolved. Another matter generating controversy was the respective powers of the executive and Congress regarding appointments to cabinet positions. While the Constitution stipulated that the advice and consent of the Senate was required for appointment, it was silent on whose authority was needed to remove secretaries from office. Many felt that the Senate’s consent was needed for termination while others held that this would hamstring the executive in controlling his subordinates in the implementation of executive responsibilities.

Congress had to address the matter of amendments to the just-ratified Constitution. During ratification states had proposed dozens of amendments that required attention by the new government. (In fact, when the Congress convened North Carolina and Rhode Island had not yet ratified.) Madison led the effort to deal with the amendments. Madison did not believe that amendments were really needed; his main aim was to avoid structural alterations to the body of the Constitution. The rights established by the amendments so cherished today and that have had such influenced on our polity to modern times were seen by many as sops to satisfy the grumbling and suspicion of reluctant states.

Two very important areas needing legislative attention resulted in bitter clashes among representatives and foretold of sectional rivalries that would persist for decades. The nation had no fiscal policy and the Congress charged Washington’s brilliant secretary of the treasury, Alexander Hamilton, with proposing a plan. Hamilton believed that the nation would never prosper until the question of its credit was resolved. He understood that the financial and commercial strength of modern nations depended on access to credit markets; this indeed was the engine that powered the great nations of Europe. That imperative hinged on how the country would settle the enormous outstanding debts it owed as the consequence of the war. This debt was held by the states and repayment varied significantly from state to state. Hamilton proposed that the national government assume the debt of the states and that it essentially borrow more money to refinance this debt. To many members of the legislature this was a shocking proposal. Adding to the controversy was how to handle the bonds and promissory notes the Continental Congress had issued to soldiers. As there had been little to no progress in satisfying these obligations many holders had sold their notes to speculators at far under face value. The idea that the notes would be now redeemed at full value was seen as a slap at those who had sold them for pennies on the dollar. Some, including Madison, proposed that the payoff be pro-rated between the original owners and those who had purchased them. Hamilton held that this would undermine faith in the government’s credit worthiness and, notwithstanding, was impossible to administer. Hamilton also proposed establishing a national bank, a move supported by commercial interests in the north, but opposed by the south with its agrarian economy.

The second great matter was the location of the national capital. The Constitution required only that this be done by the Congress. There was bitter rivalry between the states and regions on where this should be. Many from the northern states coveted the major commercial and financial benefit that the capital would create. Southerners worried that a northern capital would strengthen the anti-slavery movement that was gaining momentum. After much intrigue and shifting alliances the matter was resolved through compromise. The capital would be located somewhere on the Potomac River in exchange for enough southern votes to approve Hamilton’s financial plan.

There are several themes that stand out from this fascinating look at the first Congress. Madison shines as a genius political strategist and masterful tactician. Surely without his adroitness in moving controversial matters forward the successes of the Congress would not have happened. Similarly, the brilliant far-reaching ideas of Hamilton provided the stimulus to the emerging economy that propelled it to rapid growth. There was, however, the emergence of two strains on national unity that would fester for decades resulting ultimately in the dissolution of the union. Whether or not slavery would be perpetuated was volcanically hot in the first Congress. The petitions by anti-slavery advocates, largely Quaker driven, caused an uproar among the southern members. It was clear from the earliest days that slavery would be a rift between the regions that would never close. The second unresolved contention – created by the ambiguity of wording in the Constitution – was the respective powers of the national government and the states. This, too, would persist and threaten the unity of the nation until finally settled by the political aftermath of the Civil War.

We see in this history the emergence of political parties with Madison shifting toward an anti-Federalist, states’ rights perspective, aligning himself with Jefferson’s views. Madison’s close relationship with Washington was gradually diminished and replaced by Hamilton. Washington’s reputation, almost immune from criticism, did much to secure the national government from the forces that might have sundered it. The author reminds us that Washington held more strongly to Federalist positions as seen in his support for Hamilton’s assumption plan.

This readable well-written account of the first Congress gives us views of the personalities of many of the figures of the time and provides insights into the evolution of the nation that resonate today. ( )