A citation without at least a page number doesn’t demonstrate that you aren’t making shit up. I am no more convinced for the two links you posted.
Exactly.
I couldn’t cite page numbers for The New Nation. Refuting the “Chaos Myth” seems to be the driving force behind the book. The stats cited in The Unknown American Revolution are given on page 302 but I figured that was superfluous. That would only be useful to someone who actually owns the book, which has an index. It took me less than a minute to dig them up.
Crosspost.
Certainly it was lazy of me in the case of Mr Nash’s book but really what is the difference to you?
You don’t own the book so you are no better off now than you were before, n’est pas?
Slavery is an ironic dead-end. Most of the Founders, including those who allowed it, probably saw it declining and ending on its own. And it probably would have, if not for ELi Whitney’s remarkable invention. I consider the Founding Fathers to have achived the best of what men could do. I do not fault them to failing to foresee the future - which is why there are methods for altering the Consitutional order built into it.
I do. It was developed by John Adams’s political genius and provided an fine template which greatly inspired the Constitution. They were hardly unaware of it, and Adams published a very long book badly explaining his idea. And the Constitution itself was only one of the many accomplishments of the Founding Fathers.
This is grossly incorrect. It amounts to a very-nearly complete myth. It has no particular truth whatsoever, since the goal of a new government order was clear, nearly everyone who participated did in fact have explicit power to do so, and the states definitely joined in to approve of the result.
Yeah, that - I don’t think the constitutional convention was in any sense “illegal”, given that the states ratified the constitution anyway.
True. The writers may not have had prior direction to write a new constitution but it’s not like they imposed it upon anyone.
Political legitimacy is unusual in that it works backwards. The Declaration of Independence wasn’t legal under the British rule that existed at the time it was written. But once it took effect, it created a new nation in which British rule no longer had any power. The Constitution may not have been legal within the scope of the Articles of Confederation. But once the United States adopted the Constitution, what the Articles of Confederation said didn’t matter anymore.
Adams drafted the Massachusetts constitution but this is giving him entirely too much credit. American constitutionalism was following a tradition of becoming less concerned with curbing executive power and more concerned with curbing popular power. This can be seen in the structure of the governments created and Massachusetts is firmly in this line. Early state constitutions feature weak governors (or none) while later ones featured weaker legislatures, particularly in the lower house.
In fact, the Constitution of 1780 differed very little from the one drafted while Adams was in France and which the towns of Massachusetts had so firmly rejected (explaining why vote manipulation was necessary to get it enacted). That too featured bicameralism, property qualifcations for suffrage, and seperately elected governor who appointed officers with the upper house. The main difference was that Adams gave the governor a veto (absolute but reduced by the convention to being overriden by 2/3 majorities). This was hardly a novel idea. (Though he did also include provision for promoting education and the sciences.)
Adams was lucky with A Defence of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America. It was a potential disaster. Restricting popular power was naturally very unpopular. Adams was overseas again and unlike elites who remained in America had not learned to frame his preferences to be more palatable. A book in 1787 by a man of his stature plainly advocating plutocracy in the same basic form as the document produced by the constitutional convention in Philadelphia might well have changed the course of history. Luckily for Adams, no one read his book.
The Eighth Article of Confederation and Perpetual Union states:
Every State shall abide by the determination of the united States in congress assembled, on all questions which by this confederation are submitted to them. And the Articles of this confederation shall be inviolably observed by every State, and the union shall be perpetual; nor shall any alteration at any time hereafter be made in any of them; unless such alteration be agreed to in a congress of the united States, and be afterwards confirmed by the legislatures of every State.
Clearly this procedure was not followed. The argument is made that all states did later ratify it however the Constitution theoretically went into effect when ratified by the ninth state (New Hampshire) and actually went into effect without North Carolina and Rhode Island, which had rejected it. The Constitution was Unconstitutional! 
This was Madison’s defense.
“They must have borne in mind, that as the plan to be framed and proposed was to be submitted to the people themselves, the disapprobation of this supreme authority would destroy it forever; its approbation blot out antecedent errors and irregularities.”
(Federalist #40)
This is an incredibly broad statement. Consider the very limited suffrage of the time. Women, slaves, Catholics, men without property… no one asked them what they thought and yet they had to live under this government. Was it imposed upon them? It seems to me that the only way to argue that consent was given was to use the definitions of the times. Which brings us back to the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union.
This is the essence of it I think. It’s enough that everyone accepts the Constitution today. But that shouldn’t prevent us from having fun picking nits!
That’s a wonderful 18th century way of saying, “It’s easier to ask forgiveness than permission.” I’m going to start using that line on my girlfriend when I come home late, smelling of beer.
The brilliance of the founding fathers lies in part that they knew full well that they couldn’t cover every contingency. That is why the document is so short. That is why they build in separation of powers - so that compromise would be required.
Remember that some people thought the Louisiana Purchase was unconstitutional. At least no one screamed about original intent for that one, though.
Let’s say then that it was no more imposed upon people than the Articles of Confederation or Parliamentary rule from London had been. It was therefore as legitimate in its time as those governments had been in their times.