A Commentary of “A Documentation of the Constitution Convention From the Eyes of Cotesworth Mifflin” as Told From the Eyes of Sasmit Rahman. As you might know I had recently moved, and when I was unpacking I saw this weird document. A lot of it has been burned away, but from what I can tell it was a journal of the constitutional convention. Seeing as I am a bit of a history nerd I obviously got incredibly excited until I realized the author, Cotesworth Mifflin, didn't actually exist. In addition, the government he describes has almost no resemblance to our actual constitution. For the sake of my sanity I decided to not question how it got there in the first place. Nonetheless I began to read his journal as he began to describe his history. …show more content…
Just for the fun of it I decided to compare his odd government to my own. The journal first describes the legislative branch, for whatever reason the “delegates” choose to create a legislative branch with three houses, one more house than our own. Two large houses and a smaller house to act as a check. I'm not entirely sure how that would actually work, wouldn't the smaller house just be useless? And in our government the Senate is smaller than the House of Representatives, but it holds more power. It’s almost as if this government was created by a bunch of high schoolers. In addition both the small house and one of the large houses have representatives based off of population, and the other large house has an equal number of representatives. Again I’m not sure how this would work, and it never specified in the document. The term limits are possibly the first thing to make sense. In C.M’s government there is a 4-year term for all three of the houses, and there is an unlimited potential for reelection. In real life the senate has a 6-year term, and our House of Representatives has a term of 2-years. Both have
The reasoning behind the Constitution of the United States is presented as 'based upon the philosophy of Hobbes and the religion of Calvin. It assumes the natural state of mankind in a state of war, and that the carnal mind is at enmity with God.' Throughout, the struggle between democracy and tyranny is discussed as the Founding Fathers who envisioned the Constitution in Philadelphia in 1787 believed not in total democracy, but instead saw common man as selfish and contemptuous, and therefore in need of a 'a good political constitution to control him.' Being a largely propertied body, with the exception of William Few, who was the
The Constitutional Convention of 1787 was held to address problems in governing the United States which had been operating under the Articles of Confederation since it’s independence from Britain. Fifty-five delegates from the states attended the convention to address these issues. The delegates consisted of federalists who wanted a strong central government to maintain order and were mainly wealthier merchants and plantation owners and anti-federalists who were farmers, tradesmen and local politicians who feared losing their power and believed more power should be given to the states. The Constitutional Convention dealt with the issue of the debate between federalists and anti-federalists. The debates, arguments and compromises
On July 3rd, 1776, the Second Continental Congress unanimously declared the independence of the thirteen United States of America from Great Britain. Determined to unify the thirteen colonies, the Continental Congress adopted the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union, the first constitution of the United States, on November 15, 1777. However, ratification of the Articles of Confederation by all thirteen states did not occur until March 1, 1781. Although the articles did not prevent the United States from winning independence, the innate flaws of the articles became apparent in the years following the revolution. The problems of the weak, purely legislative national government became too prevalent for agents of the revolution, such as James Madison and George Washington. Madison and Washington were strong supporters of a federal, or national, constitution, and on June 21, 1788, congress ratified the Constitution of the United States. And in doing so, violated the “Revolutionary Ideology” and the will of the American people.
David O. Stewart, by profession, is a lawyer with a resume that includes everything from arguing appeals at the Supreme Court level to serving as a law court to the acclaimed Junior Powell. But in writing The Summer of 1787: The Men Who Invented the Constitution (specifically, I read the First Simon & Schuster trade paperback edition May 2008, copyrighted in 2007), he uses that experience in law to prove himself a gifted storyteller. Two hundred sixty-four pages long, this United States history nonfiction book does indeed have the substance to engage the reader throughout. It has special features that include two appendices featuring the elector system and the actual constitution of 1787, author’s notes, suggested further reading, acknowledgments and an index (which escalate the total length of the book to three hundred forty-nine pages long).
The Constitution Convention was made, some of compromise which was balancing power between the federal government and state government in 1787. Because of some issues was emerging at a constitution convention like lager and small states those the key compromises helped to create a perfect constitution of the united states.
In offering alternative interpretations of the origins of the Constitution, the author accomplishes his secondary purpose, to make the reader challenge what they know about the framing of the Constitution. Holton details the rebellion of the “Unruly Americans” against the state and national governments, using Adonijah Mathews as an ultimate example of the “common man.” Mathews’ views are presented in order to contrast the views of James Madison, whom it seems the author
Viewing the Constitution of the United States of America – one of America’s oldest documents - as another great beloved American classic may be demanding for almost anyone to do. Because of its old age and “unrelatable” content, the American Constitution remains a difficult thing for people of all professions, races, religions, and political views to read and enjoy just as much as any other novel. Thanks to the renowned Akhil Reed Amar, the average person’s perspective of the United States’ Constitution is altered and their knowledge of the work is expanded through the explanations provided in America’s Constitution: A Biography. By explaining not only the mentality of those who dreamed, drafted, and voted for the Constitution but also the desires of the founding fathers when creating a democracy as their choice of an ideal government for their country in a world full of monarchies, Amar is able to give readers insight on a piece that was not only relevant when it was created but is able to expand as society does. Amar creates a biography perfect for those who desire to know more about the foundations America was built on and its ability to adapt and evolve throughout the
The Constitutional Convention of 1787 and the subsequent ratification of the constitution proved to be a more significant event in American political history than the Declaration of Independence. Many of the american leaders believed we needed to a new, stronger government. They had to persuade the states that stronger government was the right direction to ensure the country’s success.They did that with the constitutional convention but, To sway the states in the right direction documents such as the Federalist papers led the states to ratify the new U.S. Constitution. Which then led to the U.S. Constitution that we still live by to the day.
55 delegates of twelve states wrote the Constitution at the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia during the summer of 1787 and in 1788 the states ratified it. That gathering at Philadelphia’s Independence Hall brought nearly all of the nation’s most prominent men together, including Alexander Hamilton, Benjamin Franklin, James Madison and George Washington. Several of the men appointed had records of service in the army and in the courts and others were experienced in colonial and state government. When Thomas Jefferson found out who had been appointed he wrote “It is really an assembly of demigods” to John Adams. That summer in Philadelphia, the men, drew out a document defining the distinct powers for the the president, the federal courts and the Congress. This division of authority that was established is known as the principle of separation of powers, and it ensures that none of the branches of government can overstep their boundaries.
Genuine Information; Mercy Otis Warren's Observations on the New Constitution ... by a Colombian Patriot; and the Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republican, whose authorship is still disputed.
The 1787 Constitutional Convention was paramount in unifying the states after the Revolutionary War. However, in order to do so, the convention had to compromise on many issues instead of addressing them with all due haste. This caused the convention to leave many issues unresolved. Most notably were the issues of slavery, race, secession, and states’ rights. Through the Civil War and the Reconstruction, these issues were resolved, and in the process the powers of the federal government were greatly expanded.
In the book “A Brilliant Solution: Inventing the American Constitution” by Carol Berkin she explains the constitution from start to finish from how it all began, to the debates inside the convention and finally the end product. Berkin takes the reader and puts him directly in the middle of the convention of 1786; throughout the book you can feel the excitement, the frustration, the tensions between delegates and the overall commitment to making a new government work for all.
“Centinel”, the pseudonym for Samuel Bryan, in 1787, argues against the three branches of government system proposed in the Constitution. He believes that this system of “checks and balances” is too complicated, hides corruption and tyranny, and infringes on citizen’s liberties. Centinel No. 1 questions the creation of a three government branch system with the intent to persuade states from adopting the Constitution as is. This article, along with other Anti-Federalist articles, stimulated debate from the local to the national levels to better regulate government power.
The last half of the 18th century was very important for the United States. During this era, the nation was founded following the Declaration of Independence and drafting and ratification of the Constitution a decade later. The 1787 constitutional convention and ratification debate was very important in the making of the US Constitution. The dynamics, antagonism, considerations, process and the eventual consensus regarding the Constitution can be explained by discrete theories in political discourses. However, there are theories that fit best within this historical context and help better explain the process of the constitutional convention and ratification. This paper will talk about pluralist theory as a theoretical perspective that best explains the workings of the 1787 constitutional convention and ratification debate, as opposed to power elite theory. This will be achieved by looking at the premises of pluralist theoretical perspective, and the workings of the 1787 constitutional convention and ratification and then show how pluralist theory best captures the workings.
In his book, A Brilliant Solution, Berkin wrote about the American constitutional congress that was challenged by the financial crisis due to repayment burdens on loans incurred during the wartime loans. After the world war in 1784, Congress had no money to fund the Federal treasury. The consequences of the war and the moves the country make to ensure the country survived the waves had tremendous effects on the stability of the country. The European countries installed various conditions to make a treaty with the United States. This paper will analyse the constitutional convention and ratification of the American Constitution as outline in the book "A Brilliant Solution: Inventing the American Constitution"