Was Constitutional Convention Really a Liberal Coup?

[EdwardBaiamonte]

It mostly was it seems. The Articles had been a huge success at limiting central govt. They contained amendment procedures, to amend the Articles, but every time the liberals tried to use them to expand the power of the central govt they failed. That is when they finally gave up and went outside the ratification process and subversively called their own convention. Who showed up? Liberals who wanted to expand the power of central govt. As soon as the conservatives saw how dangerous the new Constitution was [ Jefferson and Madison, mostly] they formed the Republican Party in 1792 to fight against liberal big govt, and Republicans have been carrying on the battle ever since.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

The liberals of that time were not the "liberals" of our time. See "Classical Liberalism".

The Founders intentionally limited federal authority. Also, the "Democrat-Republican Party" was formed to oppose the Federalist Party, which favored a strong central government as do our current-day "liberals".

The Republican Party was not formed until 1854.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

The liberals of that time were not the "liberals" of our time. See "Classical Liberalism".

obviously I was using today's definitions so the reader would not be burdened with having to know definitions from 200 years ago.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

.

The Founders intentionally limited federal authority.

100% wrong of course, the Founders intentionally expanded federal authority

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

The liberals of that time were not the "liberals" of our time. See "Classical Liberalism".

obviously I was using today's definitions so the reader would not be burdened with having to know definitions from 200 years ago.

Why add to the confusion? Most people these days have all the education of a fruit bat. Teach them.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Also, the "Democrat-Republican Party" was formed to oppose the Federalist Party, which favored a strong central government as do our current-day "liberals".

The Republican Party was not formed until 1854.

wrong of course. Jefferson and Madison formed Republican Party in 1792. Democratic-Republican Party was not formed until next century. Sorry to rock your world.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

.

The Founders intentionally limited federal authority.

100% wrong of course, the Founders intentionally expanded federal authority

The Bill of Rights is not an expansive document, but a restrictive one.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Why add to the confusion? Most people these days have all the education of a fruit bat. Teach them.

by using today's definitions you prevent confusion. Make sense??

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Also, the "Democrat-Republican Party" was formed to oppose the Federalist Party, which favored a strong central government as do our current-day "liberals".

The Republican Party was not formed until 1854.

wrong of course. Jefferson and Madison formed Republican Party in 1792. Democratic-Republican Party was not formed until next century. Sorry to rock your world.

Okay, you're uneducated.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

The Bill of Rights is not an expansive document, but a restrictive one.

Articles of Confederation was restrictive. Constitution was expansive

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Okay, you're uneducated.

if so why so afraid to tell us why? What do you learn from your fear?

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Why add to the confusion? Most people these days have all the education of a fruit bat. Teach them.

by using today's definitions you prevent confusion. Make sense??

No. Consider "well-regulated" as an example.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

No. Consider "well-regulated" as an example.

and?????

 

[usmbguest5318]

It mostly was it seems. The Articles had been a huge success at limiting central govt. They contained amendment procedures, to amend the Articles, but every time the liberals tried to use them to expand the power of the central govt they failed. That is when they finally gave up and went outside the ratification process and subversively called their own convention. Who showed up? Liberals who wanted to expand the power of central govt. As soon as the conservatives saw how dangerous the new Constitution was [ Jefferson and Madison, mostly] they formed the Republican Party in 1792 to fight against liberal big govt, and Republicans have been carrying on the battle ever since.

I don't have the will go to into all the details that make untrue your central thesis and make inaccurate your depictions of the nature of governance theory and practice in the years between the Revolution and the Constitution's enactment. Fortunately, someone has taken the time to publish a paper that does show as much.

• The United States and the Articles of Confederation: Drifting Toward Anarchy or Inching Toward Commonwealth? [My remarks below are not a comprehensive summation, not even close, of the content of the here hyperlinked document.]

The Articles created a sovereign, national government, and, as such, limited the rights of the states to conduct their own diplomacy and foreign policy. However, this proved difficult to enforce, as the national government could not prevent the state of Georgia from pursuing its own independent policy regarding Spanish Florida, attempting to occupy disputed territories and threatening war if Spanish officials did not work to curb Indian attacks or refrain from harboring escaped slaves. Nor could the Confederation government prevent the landing of convicts that the British Government continued to export to its former colonies. In addition, the Articles did not allow Congress sufficient authority to enforce provisions of the 1783 Treaty of Paris that allowed British creditors to sue debtors for pre-Revolutionary debts, an unpopular clause that many state governments chose to ignore. Consequently, British forces continued to occupy forts in the Great Lakes region. These problems, combined with the Confederation government’s ineffectual response to Shays’ Rebellion in Massachusetts, convinced national leaders that a more powerful central government was necessary. This led to the Constitutional Convention that formulated the current Constitution of the United States.

The Articles were thus inept in terms of their ability to reign in the states in the conduct of actions that are rightly unsuited to member states of a sovereign nation. Thus for whatever they were good for, they weren't good for establishing a fitting relationship between the nation and its members; that is, they weren't good for creating a united set of states that function collaboratively as a nation. Insofar as they "missed the boat" in that regard, it really doesn't matter in what dimensions they succeeded. That is the one thing above all others that they needed to do and that they did not, and everyone who mattered and cared about the nation's enduring sovereignty, not just liberals, knew it; thus they were trashed.

 

[Ringel05]

The liberals of that time were not the "liberals" of our time. See "Classical Liberalism".

The Founders intentionally limited federal authority. Also, the "Democrat-Republican Party" was formed to oppose the Federalist Party, which favored a strong central government as do our current-day "liberals".

The Republican Party was not formed until 1854.

Supporters of TJ started the Republican party (also known as the Jefferson Republicans) in 1792, it was a relative loose affiliation of anti-federalists (the original states righters). It morphed into the Democratic-Republican party which was the direct antecedent of the Democratic party.

 

[usmbguest5318]

Why add to the confusion? Most people these days have all the education of a fruit bat. Teach them.

by using today's definitions you prevent confusion. Make sense??

In a word, no.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

everyone who mattered and cared about the nation's enduring sovereignty, not just liberals, knew it; thus they were trashed.

if everyone knew it why did no one want to amend the Articles?? And why was there huge fight over radification? Did Patrick Henry matter?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Why add to the confusion? Most people these days have all the education of a fruit bat. Teach them.

by using today's definitions you prevent confusion. Make sense??

In a word, no.

if you use today's definitions the reader does not have to know definitions through times and places.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Supporters of TJ started the Republican party (also known as the Jefferson Republicans) in 1792, it was a relative loose affiliation of anti-federalists (the original states righters). It morphed into the Democratic-Republican party which was the direct antecedent of the Democratic party.

correct, but you mean antecedent of Republican Party- same name and philosophy

 

[usmbguest5318]

The liberals of that time were not the "liberals" of our time. See "Classical Liberalism".

The Founders intentionally limited federal authority. Also, the "Democrat-Republican Party" was formed to oppose the Federalist Party, which favored a strong central government as do our current-day "liberals".

The Republican Party was not formed until 1854.

Supporters of TJ started the Republican party (also known as the Jefferson Republicans) in 1792, it was a relative loose affiliation of anti-federalists (the original states righters). It morphed into the Democratic-Republican party which was the direct antecedent of the Democratic party.

True enough the ancestral foundations of the Democratic Party; however, philosophically, D-Rs preferred a decentralized federal government. Additionally, it's very important to note that today's GOP isn't at all the GOP of the 19th century. Republicans of that era were the liberals and Democrats were the conservatives.

While the party names go unchanged for ages, the high level political philosophy they've each embraced has shifted. It would not surprise me were they to shift again. To wit, some of Trump's social stances resemble those of 19th to mid-20th century Democrats and some of them resemble Republican stances from periods within the same era.