this country’s fundamental law. Thernfirst fruits of that research resulted in ArnWorthy Company, a fascinating collectionrnof biographical sketches of the menrnwho gathered for Philadelphia’s GreatrnConvention in 1787. In his last andrnposthumously published book, OriginalrnIntentions: On the Making and Ratificationrnof the United States Constitution,rnBradford applies his knowledge of thern18th-century milieu to the Philadelphiarnand state ratifying conventions, yieldingrneight purely original chapters. Read together,rnthese essays constitute a compellingrnbrief for the minimalist understandingrnof the Constitution that wasrnascendant during the salad days of thisrncountry’s federal jurisprudence.rnBradford draws upon Jonathan Elliot’srnDebates of the Several States RatifyingrnConventions, among other records,rnto reconstruct the dynamics of threernsuch state conventions. In Massachusetts,rnFederalists who made no secretrnof their antidemocratic sentimentrnseized upon Shays’ Rebellion as an examplernof the dreadful licentiousness thatrnwas likely to result if power were notrnmore centralized. The Federalist causernin Massachusetts was jeopardized byrnfierce New England exclusiveness andrnan aversion to being “unequally yoked together”rnwith the Southern states, but itrneventually prevailed with the additionrnof amendments reflecting Antifederalistrnconcerns. A distinguishing feature ofrnthe Massachusetts ratifiers, Bradfordrnnotes, was their tendency to view governmentrnas a positive good, given by Godrnfor the well-being and improvement ofrnHis covenant people.rnBy contrast, ratification of the UnitedrnStates Constitution in North and SouthrnCarolina was achieved with little talk ofrnthe advantages of energetic government.rnIn fact. Federalists at the Charleston andrnHillsborough conventions saved the planrnfor union only by assuaging—not rejectingrn—Antifederalist concerns at everyrnturn, Charles Pinckney, for example,rnneatly inverted the Antifederalist argumentrnthat the proposed constitutionrngranted the government power to derogaternunenumerated state rights byrnpromising that “no powers could bernexecuted, or assumed [by the federalrngovernment], but such as were expresslyrndelegated.” And in North Carolina, Federalistsrninsisted, against Antifederalistrnwarnings of despotism, that no branch ofrnthe national government, especially thernjudiciary, could meddle with the internalrnaffairs of state governments. Perhaps thernonly participant in the ratification debatesrnof these Southern states who foresawrnthe extent to which general provisionsrnof the Constitution could bernabused through loose construction wasrnthe conservative Rawlins Lowndes, whorndeclared that he “wished for no otherrnepitaph, than to have inscribed on hisrntomb, ‘Here lies the man that opposedrnthe Constitution, because it was ruinousrnto the liberty of America.'”rnBradford’s essay on “Religion and thernFramers” stands in sharp contrast to thernSupreme Court’s modern EstablishmentrnClause decisions, and illustrates morernclearly than any other chapter justrnhow far adrift courts can go when theyrnabandon the original understanding ofrnconstitutional provisions in favor of unenumeratedrn”constitutional principles.”rnAlmost to a man, the Framers were orthodoxrnChristians, cognizant of God’srnprovidence in their own lives and unhesitantrnin their willingness to invokernHis name and pray for His blessings inrntheir public endeavors. These menrnwould not have dreamed of judging lawsrntouching religion under an agnostic standardrnlike that delineated by the Court inrnLemon v. Kurtzman (1971), which demandsrnthat every government act have arnstrictly secular purpose and remain freernfrom the taint of religion. It is ironic indeedrnthat Thomas Jefferson, an indisputablernoutlier from his contemporariesrnwith regard to religious matters, is thernFramer whose ideas form the basis forrnmodern church-state jurisprudence. Jeffersonrnwas out of the country, in France,rnat the time the Bill of Rights was passedrnby Congress and ratified by the states,rnand his famous “wall of separation” (arnphrase he did not coin until 1802) flewrnin the face of almost every Americanrncolony’s political history before thatrntime.rnThe most elegant chapters in OriginalrnIntentions, “Such a Government as thernPeople Will Approve: The Great Conventionrnas Comic Action” and “The BestrnConstitution in Existence; The Influencernof the British Example on thernFramers of our Fundamental Law,” remindrnus of Bradford at his familiar best,rnas the great rhetorician assiduously miningrnthe historical record and then arrangingrnits details into a powerful narrative.rnBradford recalls that America’srnnovus ordo seclorum was essentially inherited,rnwith modifications wroughtrnthrough political compromise. OurrnConstitution was not drawn from thernpure waters of general principle; it is notrna document that aspires to theoreticalrnperfection. Because the basic libertiesrnand privileges possessed by Americansrnare specific and historically rooted, theyrnare subject to discovery, application, andrnformal amendment, but not (legitimately)rnto re-creation according to evolvingrnstandards of “justice.” Nor are thernwords of the Constitution autonomousrnsymbols that can mean different thingsrnto different ages. That is why, to returnrnto the title and theme of Original Intentions,rnconstitutional interpretation isrnconcerned not just with the abstractrnmeaning of text, but with the utterancernof it by men situated in time, place, andrncircumstance. Of all people. Dr. Bradfordrnappreciated that truth, and his finalrncollection of essays is faithful to it.rnDavid J. Porter is an attorney inrnPittsburgh. He was recently seniorrnlaw clerk to United States District JudgernD. Brooks Smith.rnNegative Capabilityrnby William MillsrnThe Crossingrnby Cormac McCarthyrnNew York: Knopf 426 pp., $23.00rnSo many things have been said inrnpraise of McCarthy’s work that it isrnhard not to sound like an echo. Inevitably,rnthe reviewer notes the energyrnand grace of his style, and there is norngainsaying that. The relentless power ofrnhis sentences and the tautness of the actionrncan leave a reader emotionally exhausted.rnAfter reading The Crossingrnsome time ago, I dropped back and readrnBlood Meridian, which I had missedrnsomehow; afterward I told my wife thatrnI was going to have to let this wildcat gornfor a while. I was simply drained fromrnfollowing his spoor in such wild terrainrnand in such weather.rnEarlier appraisals of McCarthy’s workrnhave often lacked any recognition of itsrnhumor, whether of situation or of dialogue.rnIn The Crossing, the laconic exchangesrnbetween Billy Parham, the cen-rn34/CHRONICLESrnrnrn