Honors section discussion question for 11/15: Part 1
The week after Thanksgiving we will be discussing Charlotte Temple and the other sentimental novels, so be warned. This week let's think about the Constitution. I know that kids today can't enough of the Constitution. Given the accidental free week off you guys got last week, I am going to ask two questions (in two posts), and I would like you to answer both online.
Question 1: What relationship does the Constitution have to the ideals of the Revolution as embodied in such documents as Common Sense, the Virginia Declaration of Rights, the Declaration of Independence, and the Pennsylvania Constitution of 1776: fulfillment, advance, or regression/counterrevolution? In other words, did the Constitution try to take the Revolution back?
Question 1: What relationship does the Constitution have to the ideals of the Revolution as embodied in such documents as Common Sense, the Virginia Declaration of Rights, the Declaration of Independence, and the Pennsylvania Constitution of 1776: fulfillment, advance, or regression/counterrevolution? In other words, did the Constitution try to take the Revolution back?
posted by Jeff Pasley at 5:15 PM
10 Comments:
It seems like the earlier documents, like Common Sense and the particular states’ declarations of rights could be considered drafts for the American Constitution. I think that all of the statements requiring natural and inherent rights would have stemmed from Lockean thinking and especially Jefferson’s famous “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” phrase in the Declaration of Independence. Since Common Sense was printed first, the trailblazer or precursor for all of the affirmations that would follow, Paine’s language is much stronger than probably acceptable at that time. In the first paragraph, Paine even acknowledges that it may not be “fashionable to procure [his sentiments] general favor.” But I assume that our founders took a lot of the ideas from these first documents and molded them into the present Constitution, probably watering down some of the harshness and language. The ideals of the Revolution are completely evident in the early writings of American liberty.
In regards to the taking back of the Revolution, I think that they did just the opposite. Many people might have considered it a mistake, losing their family to the war, and our leaders wanted to prove that this war and the lives that were lost were not for naught, and by pushing for rights that were “inherent” or “natural” and therefore strictly American rather than “rights of Englishmen,” America proved its ability to gain liberty not solely through the Revolutionary War but through a written constitution, blatantly arguing and verbally fighting for the rights they had been struggling for a few years earlier. Advances in the ideas of liberty were made during this early American time. Specific types of rights and systems for government were set up, and Americans were not just fighting for “freedom” as it was in the case of the Revolution, but more for definitive government rights, stated in these earlier documents and later in the Constitution [like trial by jury, religion, press, bear arms, etc].
No,I believe the Constitution embodies the spirit of the struggle that was the American Revolution. For example, while the Declaration of Independence did sever ties with England, it still treated the King with reverence. The Declaration was simply a clarification of rights of the American people, and a promise to uphold their beliefs and ideals at any cost. The Constitution is a reinforcement of the Declaration, o Common Sense, and of all that Americans fought for in the first war, and continue to fight for to this day: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
This comment has been removed by the author.
As has been stated before in lecture, it was much easier for the Americans to define what they were against than what they were for. The revolution was in no way a concrete, single set of ideas. While it did describe a general desire to revolt against traditional European government and politics, no one was in total agreement on what to replace it with. The extremely loose limited nature of the government created by the articles of confederation seemed to capture the revolutions emphasis on liberty quite well, but also proved to be its downfall. The new Constitution simply was an attempt to make this new nation feasible. If the die-hard revolutionary spirit was a hypothesis, then the articles were an experiment that proved the need for a modification of those ideas. Though there were many new ideas added, the Constitution intended to make those original ideas about government and a single unified nation both feasible and I think it for the most part accomplished that goal.
In my opinion, the Constitution fulfilled many of the ideals listed in these revolutionary documents. For instance, in Paine’s Common Sense, he speaks of a representative governments with separate parts and for elections to be held often and regularly. He speaks of monarchs and aristocracies acting tyrannical, and the best government for the common good of the people would be a representative government. I believe his document was crucial during this time for the federalist’s side of the Constitution.
The Virginia Declaration of Rights also lists many ideals that are implemented in our Constitution as well. This list of rights basically sets up the outline for our Bill of Rights, including natural rights and even the writ of Habeus Corpus. The Pennsylvania Constitution also lists more fundamental parts that are applied in the Constitution. All of these documents list the reasons behind the American’s drive behind the Revolution and I believe the Constitution fulfilled many of these ideals.
The constitution was somewhat a backward counter-revolution. One of the main ideals of the revoution was a fight against taxation, yet from the constitution came nearly the same amount of taxation as before which was needed for the new congress. Essentially the states found themselves paying off the war debts. Also, the constitution made for a more powerful central goverment which was one thing the colonist were fighting against in the revolution.
I believe the Constitution fulfilled the main Lockean principles regarding human rights illustrated in earlier documents such as Common Sense. The Constitution granted citizens Locke's natural liberties and inalienable rights, and fitted those into a document that would coincide with effective government. I think one of the counter-revolution aspects of the Constitution involves the creation of a powerful central government. Although a powerful central government was essential for winning the war, it is not one of the main ideas pushed for by revolutionary thinkers, as many believed in the freedom of individual states as shown in the Articles of Confederation.
I believe that the Constitution set the majority of the Revolution's ideals in stone, while eliminating the extreme degree of independance of the states that made effective government impossible.It clearly defines the natural rights of the people, and establishes limits to the government's authority, both of which are reasons the Revolution was fought. Effectively, it put the nature of the colonist's independence in writing.
I am going to have to agree with the spirit of Michael's post. The Declaration of Independence, Common Sense, and various state constitutions (under monarchical control) were documents that were able to bring a people together -- to join them under one banner. The Constitution, however, was a document that was able to rule. This is a distinction that has to be made.
In the Declaration of Independence and Common Sense, demagoguery was used to incite the people to rebel. The elites needed the people to have a fire for revolution. These documents held, at least in spirit, the most radical and liberal ideas as their main tenets. Under these tenets the Americans felt they they would be moving to something great. The elites felt the exact opposite.
The Constitution served as a way for the elites to temper what they had started. They saw this failed "experiment" of the Articles as a way to sell their brand of protection, the brand that had swiftly gotten away from them in the Revolution, to the populous. They were able to illustrate that this powerless, completely decentralized government would not work. From there they were able to whittle away at they people's wants until they reached what they saw as a fair compromise.
The Constitution took away many rights that had been talked about during the Revolution. The Constitution also restricted the decentralization of government. Does that mean that it was a step backward? No. How much of a step backward would it have been if the Constitution hadn't been able to unite this dissimilar people, sectionalism was alive and well from the moment of an American identity, and all would have fallen into chaos? The only step that was taken here was the practical one. It limited freedoms. But it was the only option.
I do not think that the Constitution was a way of "taking back" the Declaration of Independence. The Declaration of Independence stated the grievances of the Americans, and the Constitution took those grievances and based a body of law around them. I think that in a way the Constitution is the sophisticated version of the Declaration of Independence. The Constitution shares many basic ideas with those documents- rights to happiness and personal ownership. The Constitution takes these ideas and solidifies them within our society.
Post a Comment
<< Home