Tango01 | 16 Nov 2020 3:46 p.m. PST |
"The beginning of the American political order goes much further back than the Philadelphia Convention of 1787. Political scientists and political theorists are understandably fixated on the Constitution and the convention that produced it. Eric Voegelin, Willmoore Kendall, and a few others go even further back searching for a continuity in the political symbolization present in some certain select, but not all, American political documents of the colonial era. Origins and foundings are broader and more complex things than what a selection of documents or the deliberations that one constitution convention can reveal. Any political order is bound up with the cultural, religious, social and political ethos and eidos of a people and their society. In the American experience, there was not one founding but thirteen and these "foundings" took place over a period of slightly more than a century. Present in these thirteen political orders were powerful commonalities and significant differences among each of the thirteen distinct societies. What is the most significant cooperative action on the part of these thirteen states, the War for Independence, was as much a source of division as it was of unity. All the colonial governments seceded for the British Empire, but only a minority of colonists, one-third if we believe Mr. John Adams, perhaps as low as one-fifth if some scholars are to be believed, favored secession from Great Britain. A plurality just wanted the war to go away. Of course, this is not important, unless one is in the habit of introducing your constitution with the phrase, "We the People…"…" Main page link Amicalement Armand
|
Max Schnell | 16 Nov 2020 7:02 p.m. PST |
|
StarCruiser | 16 Nov 2020 7:02 p.m. PST |
Quite a bit of poor spelling and grammar in there… No real face to the author (a picture of some character from around that era) and more than a little bit general 'falseness' to the whole thing… Makes me wonder if the person behind this "Conservative" site is either actually -somewhere else- or just not very well educated. |
khanscom | 16 Nov 2020 7:07 p.m. PST |
@john snelling: The constitutional convention might make an interesting committee game-- possibly along the lines of "Credo". |
Zephyr1 | 16 Nov 2020 10:23 p.m. PST |
"U.S. Constitution" I like it & am happy to keep it… :-) "How do I war-game this?"
You need at least 13 players to start… ;-) |
doc mcb | 17 Nov 2020 5:22 a.m. PST |
Ho hum, this is valid enough but hardly new. Each of the thirteen newly independent states had to write state constitutions in 1776. These deserve careful study, and have received it. A few states (primarily Pennsylvania) then changed their 1776 constitution, radically democratic, for a more conservative (but still revolutionary) one. So when the states sent representatives to the Philadelphia Convention in 1787, ostensibly to suggest changes in the Articles, they tended to send men who had been involved in writing their state constitutions. If the Philadelphia Convention was a brilliant success (it was) it was because they were not doing it for the first time. |
Brechtel198 | 17 Nov 2020 6:19 a.m. PST |
They weren't convened to 'suggest changes' in the Articles of Confederation, but to improve it as it was inadequate as a governing document as it did not provide for an executive and the power to tax at the national level. As Washington was deferred to as the de facto head of state in the last three years of the war, that ability was abolished when Washington resigned and went home. And the delegates in Philadelphia came to the realization that the Articles were inadequate and had to be replaced with something newer and better. |
historygamer | 17 Nov 2020 7:49 a.m. PST |
Seems like a foreign propoaganda website posing as something else. Truly fake news. |
doc mcb | 17 Nov 2020 11:29 a.m. PST |
No Kevin, they were originally intended to recommend amendments to the Articles, but quickly decided to ignore that and write a new plan. |
doc mcb | 17 Nov 2020 11:32 a.m. PST |
link This isn't even debatable. But I think we are just using different words that mean the same thing. |
Bill N | 17 Nov 2020 11:53 a.m. PST |
They weren't convened to 'suggest changes' in the Articles of Confederation, but to improve it as it was inadequate as a governing document as it did not provide for an executive and the power to tax at the national level. As with much involving the Constitution it depends on who you are talking about. The mandate that the Confederation Congress gave was "for the sole and express purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation". The Annapolis Convention had proposed "that a Convention of Deputies from the different States, for the special and sole purpos of entering into this investigation, and digesting a plan for supplying such defects as may be discovered to exist…without being particularized". Hamilton, Madison, Washington and Franklin had their ideas of what the Constitutional Convention was to accomplish and how. That does not mean the other members of the convention had the same vision when they met, or that those who authorized the convention and appointed the members had that same vision. |
Tango01 | 17 Nov 2020 12:35 p.m. PST |
Thanks!. Amicalement Armand |
Brechtel198 | 17 Nov 2020 1:26 p.m. PST |
they were originally intended to recommend amendments to the Articles Is that not improving the document? The mandate that the Confederation Congress gave was "for the sole and express purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation". Again, that is attempting to improve it. |
Bill N | 17 Nov 2020 6:29 p.m. PST |
Any alteration of the existing Articles of Confederation would be for the purpose of improving them. However you rejected the notion that the Constitutional Convention was convened to "suggest changes" to the Articles Kevin. So perhaps you should start with your own comment. Rather than using cagey language capable of multiple interpretations it would perhaps be more useful to use the more obvious words "repair" or "replace" to indicate what was intended for the Articles of Confederation. |
John the OFM | 17 Nov 2020 6:46 p.m. PST |
Kevin is being Kevin. Again. He is acting like he is the Chairman of the TMP American Revolution History Department. Again. He thinks he is Kindly Old Professor Kiley and that you will thank him for imposing rigor, to which he does not hold himself. Again. |
Brechtel198 | 18 Nov 2020 5:57 a.m. PST |
Using the term 'improve' indeed was the Framer's intent. Repair is also suitable. But the idea of replacement of the Articles did not come to the fore of the 'discussion' until after the convention was convened. |
doc mcb | 18 Nov 2020 6:01 a.m. PST |
Kevin quibbles. He isn't wrong, he just over-emphasizes a part of a complex matter. |
Brechtel198 | 18 Nov 2020 6:50 a.m. PST |
Seems to me the 'quibblers' are elsewhere. And it is also a false accusation which is quite uncalled for. Throwing the onus onto someone else for any type of error is merely a tactic to cover up one's own error(s). Perhaps instead of accusing others of what you might be guilty of yourself it would be better to engage in historical discussion and not personal comments. Definition of 'quibble': -'to evade the point of an argument by caviling about words.' definition of 'caviling': '-to raise trivial and frivolous objection.' Perhaps you should actually try to understand what the meaning and definitions of words that you use, especially when accusing people of something they have not done. You may find out that you are doing what you are accusing others of. |
John Switzer | 18 Nov 2020 8:48 a.m. PST |
|
Dennis | 18 Nov 2020 3:21 p.m. PST |
Do the threads that descend into acrimony have a common element? |
Tango01 | 18 Nov 2020 10:06 p.m. PST |
Yes… Bad Waves… (smile) Amicalement Armand
|