They obviously weren’t doing what they were instructed to do, that is, amend the Articles of Confederation. But was that treasonous?
I doubt that anyone was going to bring up George Washington and Benjamin Franklin on treason charges.
You can say they overstepped their mandate, but treason usually involves helping out your enemy in a war of some kind or overthrowing the government.
Since the existing government (the Confederation Congress) didn’t object to the results of the Philadelphia Convention, I doubt that anyone was going to bring up charges.
Perhaps, technically, they did commit treason against the federal governmet formed under the Articles of Confederation.
However, I say since the result was much, much better for the American people, they shouldn’t be indicted for it.
I beleive I read once that Washington wanted them sworn to secrecy while discussing it at least. It might not have been treasonous, but replacing the government is one hell of a step. I think that today we take our government for granted. They didn’t, and were understandbly hesistant. Besides, Washington probably remembered the reaction of the government the last time he replaced one.
Washington’s desire for secrecy wasn’t out of fear, but more out of a feeling that the Convention would get more work done if there weren’t as many outside influences.
You do know that treason is the only crime defined in the Constitution.
I don’t see why it would be treasonous, since the states all acceded to the Constitution voluntarily and unanimously (albeit with some foot-dragging by Rhode Island). Since the Articles recognized such a huge degree of state sovereignty, I think they recognized the states could pretty well agree to any new form of government they might like.
The Declaration of Independence - now * that * was treason against the colonists’ lawful sovereign.
From the website Merriam-Webster.
The members of the convention did not attmept by overt act to overthrow the government of the United States of America. Instead, they attempted to modify said government as was deemed neccesary. Originally charged with amending the Articles of Confederation, they quickly decided that the type of federation the envisioned neccessary would not be possible without so totally re-writing the Articles as to make them unrecognizable as the same instrument of government.
But the country remained the same, and although the mechanism of federal government mutated, no one was overthrown. Had the United States in Congress assembled chosen to repudiate the Convention’s efforts, and THEN the Conventioneers attempted to obtain some sort of approval, THEN there might have been treason.
But doesn’t the fact remain that the delegates did not follow their orders, in that they created a new government rather than amend the Articles?
The only thing I can think of is that the Articles do not define treason, and the fact that the Framers define treason in Article III but prohibit the passing of ex post factos laws prevents their actions from being considered treasonous.
They just amended the articles a WHOLE lot.
Granted, you could say that the formation of a new Constitution would just be an extreme amending of the Articles of Confederation.
However, delegates of Delaware were ordered not to alter past the fifth part of the Articles of Confederation of the fifth part itself, which guaranteed that each state should be entitled to one vote.*
Yet, the Constitution created a lower house consisting proportional representaiton and an upper house consisting of equal representation with two votes per state.
–
*Charles A. Beard, “Framing the Constitution.”
For the Framers to be guilty of treason, there would had to have been some authority around who considered their activity treasonous. Since no one in authority thought that, then I don’t see any treasonous acts.
Seems more like insubordination than treason, if anything.