Comment: Yup...

(See in situ)


Didn't have time to check the comments, but the article
states things pretty well.

Ferdinand Lundberg took a similar view in his 1982 book "Cracks in the Constitution"

From a longish but excellent review:

"Lundberg destroys the romanticism and enthusiasm felt today about the Constitution and the revolt against Great Britain preceding it. He began by reviewing the establishment of state constitutions at the time and the enactment of the Articles of Confederation adopted by the Second Continental Congress November 15, 1777 with final ratification March 1, 1781. None of these events had electoral sanction. "They were strictly coup d'etat affairs, run by small groups of self-styled patriots many of whom bettered their personal economic positions significantly" from the revolution and events before and after it took place. Despite what's commonly taught in schools, most people opposed the Constitution when it was ratified. So by getting it done anyway, the framers (with the conservative Federalists spearheading the effort) went against the will of the people they ignored and disdained."

We often refer to "the framers" and conflate those who supported/initiated the Declaration
of Independence with those promoting the Constitution, but they were substantially different people with different agendas and Lundberg goes into this in some depth.

He also deals with the seeming dissonance of the Bill of Rights and the body of the Constitution which occurred because the people proposing the Bill of Rights did not want the Constitution at all - (and hence were not that concerned about how well it was going to work in practice) and those pushing quick ratification accepted the BoR as a necessary concession - but one they figured the centralizing features built into the Constitution would eventually override anyway.

Which seems to be pretty much how it has turned out. Unfortunately for us.