Review of: The Wisest Council in the World
The Wisest Council in the World. by John R. Vile. (Athens, GA: The University of Georgia Press, 2015.)
By Gregg Frazer (The Master’s University)
John Vile’s The Wisest Council in the World is an extensive analysis of William Pierce’s well-known (among scholars) character sketches of the delegates to the Constitutional Convention. From historical background to a brief biographical sketch of Pierce to evaluation of delegates’ abilities and qualities to comparisons with similar sketches by other observers, Vile offers everything a scholar might want to know about these important sketches.
Vile offers interesting historical tidbits such as the fact that Congress moved from Philadelphia to Princeton in 1783 under threat of troops using force against them to get their pay (24) and that Pierce left the convention to fight a duel (which was averted) and to argue for congressional help against Indian threats in Georgia (30). Vile also gives us useful biographical information such as an explanation for why Pierce leaned toward a relatively nationalistic perspective (29) – an explanation that may apply to other delegates. In addition, because Pierce left the convention early, died “just two years after the convention adjourned,” and did not include anything from the debate over ratification, Vile assures us that his observations were “contemporary” and not influenced by subsequent reputations” (12). Pierce left so early that the Great Compromise and “a number of other important constitutional innovations” had not yet been added, but he reported in 1788 that he would have signed it “with all my heart” if he had been present. Vile suggests that since Pierce’s sketches were published forty years after the convention, but before Madison’s notes, through the sketches “citizens were reintroduced to the cast of characters before reading the notes” (34).
Vile’s analysis of Pierce’s sketches is often interesting and includes some valuable historical and cultural context, but is not always particularly insightful or profound – largely because the sketches themselves are just that: sketches. Vile notes that Pierce discussed the age and speaking abilities and style of almost every delegate, but was inconsistent with other types of information. According to Vile’s analysis of Pierce’s notes, the “more accomplished speakers” tried to appeal to emotion as much as to mind (86). Vile’s conclusion from the “paucity of religious references” in Pierce’s sketches is that the Episcopalian “Pierce was either unfamiliar with the religious affiliations of other delegates or that he considered them to be relatively unimportant” (99). He speculates that Pierce’s scanty comments may encourage contemporary scholars to focus on deism rather than “what may have been the conventional piety of the larger group” (99).
Two unexpected chapters add color to Vile’s exploration of the character of the convention delegates. He first compares Pierce’s descriptions with those of Louis-Guillaume Otto, a French diplomat in the United States from 1779 to 1792. Otto did not describe all of the convention delegates, but wrote character sketches of those former convention delegates who were serving in the Confederation Congress in 1788. Vile’s comparison of the two highlights the French minister’s identification of those who favored France and those who favored England. Also of interest is Otto’s “colossal misjudgment” that The Federalist Papers was “fairly useless” (119). After the chapter on the French contribution, Vile discusses the character sketches drawn by Pierce’s son, William Leigh Pierce, who was born after the elder Pierce’s death. In his 1812 Fourth of July oration and in an epic poem he wrote in 1812, the younger Pierce tried his hand at describing the character of several of the former convention delegates. Given what transpired between the convention and 1812, the younger Pierce effusively praised Washington and suggested that the compromises that made up the Constitution were possible only in that special time among those special men.
The Wisest Council in the World is not for everyone; it is not for the casual reader. It is not a difficult read, just more pedantic than popular in its approach. The one criticism I have is that, at times, it seems rather repetitive. In the analysis chapters, the text of Pierce’s sketches is reproduced, followed by Vile’s analysis which re-quotes many phrases or sentences of the original that one has just read. There may not be another or better way to do this, but it does seem redundant. Vile’s study is obviously best suited for, and of interest to, scholars of the founding and those particularly interested in the key players of that period. It is very informative, if not particularly engaging. I recommend it to the above-mentioned audience.
