A fascinating look at the early period of the formation of America government. The central theme from which the title derives is the tradeoff between power (enabling those in government) and liberty (the rights of individuals). Wood lays this out in chapters that review the debate over separating from England, how the States paved the way for self-government in the form we have today through their own constitutions, and how the resulting “democracy gone wild” led to a conservative shift and the increased Federal power in the Constitution of 1787 that we now revere. Getting his insights into how this played out over time, when the Revolutionary period is all too easily lumped together in one’s mind, was wonderful. He goes on in further chapters to address slavery, the rise of power in the Judicial branch, and the debate between public and private spheres, which set the context for each in startling ways, as well as an epilogue that focuses on the wild (yet productive) state of Rhode Island as a case study. As any form of government has its flaws, and as Wood deftly represents the framework for the government in Great Britain, it’s a work that really made me think, and all the more so because of the relevance of these same debates in the present day.

Jefferson and Madison, while they differed on the proper amount of Federal authority, both saw with great frustration what democracy was in the first decade of America. Wood writes, “Such men [the elected representatives] rarely had any concern for public honor or honesty and always seemed to have a ‘particular interest to serve’ regardless of the needs of the whole state or the nation. They made a travesty of the legislative process and were reluctant to do anything that might appear unpopular with their constituents. They postponed taxes, subverted debts owed to the subjects of Great Britain, and passed, defeated, and repassed bills in the most haphazard manner.” Madison realized that “too many Americans could not see beyond their own pocketbooks or their own neighborhoods.” Sound familiar? This is what led to the Constitutional Congress, and the ensuing debate between all-Federal authority, essentially demolishing the States, and allowing States some authority without creating an “imperium in imperio,” an empire within an empire. Wood’s description of its formation and the compromises along the way is excellent.

Wood probably should have included content on how the Constitution notably did not allow its states to secede from the Union, since this would be the drama that would play out in the 19th century. That said, he summarizes the viewpoints and debates without apparent bias, simply trying to present truth and historical accuracy, which I appreciated. He lauds the achievements of the early American government, noting how many of its aspects were unprecedented in the world, while at the same time, makes it clear that American democracy was not without its drawbacks, and that its leaders struggled with where to place power.

The formation of the electoral college was another fascinating passage. “…how would the people in such a huge nation know who were the best men qualified to be president?” Wood writes. “Finally after much discussion and many votes, the Convention decided to create an alternative Congress composed of notables who would know who was competent to be president; it would have one function: to elect the president every four years. … Many expected the electoral college to work as a nominating body in which no one normally would get a majority of electoral votes; therefore, most elections would take place in the House of Representatives among the top five candidates, with each state’s congressional delegation voting as a unit.” It’s just fascinating to ponder the original intention vs. the usage of this body today.

Wood is not without the occasional clunker, however. Early on he states that because Americans come from a wider set of cultures, “other nations are having greater problems with immigrants than we are,” completely overlooking America’s long history of persecuting successive waves of immigrant groups, to the present day. I’m also not sure quoting Charles Beard’s treatise from 1913 on the Constitution was such a great idea, given his “specific arguments and proofs have been eviscerated and were too crudely presented to be persuasive today.” Overall, though, this is a good read, and certainly insightful in many more areas beyond the points I’ve mentioned here. ( )