Former featured articleConstitution of the United States is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on January 15, 2005.
On this day... Article milestones
DateProcessResult
August 4, 2004Featured article candidatePromoted
October 25, 2008Featured article reviewDemoted
August 24, 2010Peer reviewReviewed
On this day... Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on September 17, 2004, September 17, 2005, September 17, 2006, September 17, 2008, September 17, 2009, and September 17, 2010.
Current status: Former featured article

Template:Vital article


Archives (Index)

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Flowery, biased, and factually incorrect

A recent edit by @Dhtwiki adds this text, which I see as problematic:

"One people" dissolved their connection with another, and assumed among the powers of the earth, a sovereign nation-state. The scope of the Constitution is twofold. First, "to form a more perfect Union" than had previously existed in the "perpetual Union" of the Articles of Confederation. Second, to "secure the blessings of liberty", which were to be enjoyed by not only the first generation but for all who came after, "our posterity".

Freoh (talk) 12:29, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to want to have this article be a critique of constitutional language rather than an analysis of the constitution that takes its words at face value. Perhaps there is room here for the former, if it doesn't already exist; but I think it requires discussion and consensus on what criticisms are appropriate. Dhtwiki (talk) 23:31, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What exactly do you mean by an analysis of the constitution that takes its words at face value? WP:VOICE explicitly forbids stating opinions (such as those held by the writers of the constitution) as facts. Freoh (talk) 07:55, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

it requires discussion and consensus on what criticisms are appropriate

Based on the guidelines in WP:BOLD, I don't think it does. Freoh (talk) 07:57, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Adding tags requires you start a meaningful discussion, this doesnt qualify. I have reverted them Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:25, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Why don’t you find this discussion meaningful? Freoh (talk) 13:45, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still not satisfied with the current text, which states that "One people" dissolved their connection with another, and assumed among the powers of the earth, a sovereign nation-state. Could you explain your objections to my proposal? Freoh (talk) 20:29, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you have no objections, I'm going to re-add my edit. Freoh (talk) 20:49, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As before, my objection stands; and you haven't gotten other support for what you want to add. Dhtwiki (talk) 06:08, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand your objection. You asked for an analysis of the constitution that takes its words at face value, but this is the kind of thing that should not be stated in wikivoice. You asked for discussion and consensus, and I'm trying to get consensus, but I can't propose a compromise until I understand your objections. Could you please explain? Freoh (talk) 15:44, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Even for the standard hagiography, "assumed a sovereign nation-state" is bad language. The DoI speaks of assuming the status of a sovereign state; the founding conventions (not synonymous with the people, whatever they said) created a new entity, it's not something that can be "assumed". —Tamfang (talk) 00:56, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Tamfang, you might be interested in the ongoing conversations in § Beard v. Brown...or 160,000 v. 560,000 and § The People proposal, where we are continuing to discuss how to present who the people really were.      — Freoh 14:00, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I should make it clear that I didn't really add text; I merely reverted to what was already there. Dhtwiki (talk) 08:08, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material. The fact that your material was the status quo is not a justification to keep it. Freoh (talk) 10:46, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Freoh:, @Dhtwiki:: The merits or demerits of these edits, relative to the prior text, is complicated by the fact that both are inappropriately subjective, albeit from opposing viewpoints, and neither realistically complies with WP:NPOV. Neither the cynical language of the previous text, nor the romantic notion of the edited text, are appropriate nor necessary in an encyclopedia built on the principle of WP:NPOV.

At the least, the editors could have claimed that these were "the declared intentions" of the Constitution's authors, signers and ratifiers -- citing further (and quoting) evidence from specific references, external to the Constitution itself (though there are so many such parties that a truly representative sample is unlikely, given the subjective lens through which a Wikipedia editor is likely to choose among them).

But without specific external declarations, from WP:RS sources, to cite as references, it is highly inappropriate for any Wikipedia editor to presume to assign motives to others' words, in the text of an article.

Freoh, please reconsider your language, in conformity with WP:NPOV and WP:RS.

Further, this matter is complicated by the fact that the contested edit was, in fact, multiple, separate edits, in different parts of the article, each an issue in its own right. In a subject so important, sensitive and controversial as the Constitution of the United States, it is reckless (and thoughtless of other editors) to scatter different edits all in one edit-event -- making it tricky to debate (and remove or restore) the disparate elements of the bunch-edit.

One edit at a time would make it easier to address specific differences, and resolve conflicts on those specific elements, without disturbing the other edits (or leaving them to other discussions, as separate edits). Please be considerate of the collaborative nature of Wikipedia in such cases.

~ Penlite (talk) 15:58, 18 December 2022 (UTC) (P.S.: I must withdraw from this debate, owing to other duties).[reply]

I am way too busy right now to get into the details of this issue, but I generally concur with User:Penlite's critique of both sides. --Coolcaesar (talk) 17:19, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Penlite about the separate edits. I'll make a new proposal for this edit:
Current Proposal
Rather, it sets out the origin, scope, and purpose of the Constitution. Its origin and authority is in "We the People of the United States". This echoes the Declaration of Independence. "One people" dissolved their connection with another,[clarification needed] and assumed among the powers of the earth, a sovereign nation-state. The scope of the Constitution is presented as twofold. First, "to form a more perfect Union" than had previously existed in the "perpetual Union" of the Articles of Confederation. Second, to "secure the blessings of liberty", which were to be enjoyed by not only the first generation but for all who came after, "our posterity".[1][disputed – discuss] Rather, it sets out the origin, scope, and purpose of the Constitution. Its origin and authority is in "We the People of the United States," echoing the Declaration of Independence in its claim to speak for all Americans.[2] The scope of the Constitution is presented as twofold: "to form a more perfect Union" and to "secure the blessings of liberty,"[1] though this contradicts the legal protection given to the slave trade in § Article I.[3][4]
I know that the word claim is a word to watch, but I think it's appropriate in this case, given that there's historical consensus that it's a false claim. Freoh (talk) 18:26, 22 December 2022 (UTC) (edited Freoh (talk) 14:09, 23 December 2022 (UTC))[reply]
@Freoh: I think your latest proposal is more congruent with WP:NPOV than either the original text or your previously proposed edits. I'm not looking closely (busy) but it seems OK. But I urge you to get others to buy it, before revising the article accordingly. ~ Penlite (talk) 13:03, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Dhtwiki and Coolcaesar, any objections? Freoh (talk) 13:14, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Freoh:@Dhtwiki:@Coolcaesar:I retract my endorsement. I'm guilty of a recklessly ill-informed response -- having not checked the reference cited. The cited references apparently do not meet the standards of WP:NPOV, as they appear to be chielfy counter-cultural/arch-liberal sources, the last one is apparently an exposition propounding a highly controversial socio-poltiical theory -- Critical Race Theory -- and Freoh offers it as the sole supporting reference on it's point.
When toying with so precious and serious a matter as the Constitution, so steeped in historical controversy, it's simply reckless to offer one very partisan viewpoint as supporting reference for any arguably controversial statement. VERY inapproprirate, and sharply undermines the credibility of Wikipedia as an objective and credible source.
Please find more truly neutral sources, multiples of them, (or pair each liberal source with a substantial conservative source) (or preferably a balanced mulitiplicity of them) that support your phrases. They're out there.
And, after meeting that WP:RS and WP:NPOV balance, I urge you to get others to buy your edit, before revising the article accordingly. Apologies for not having checked you proposal more carefully before responding the first time.
~Penlite (talk) 13:21, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What do you think is controversial about the information I'm adding? I've just added another supporting source. Personally, I see it as reckless to leave the current version in, which is significantly less accurate. Freoh (talk) 14:09, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that I've revised my previous statement to be more inclusive of all your edits and cited sources. Please study and understand the concept of WP:NPOV and WP:RS before further edits. ~ Penlite (talk) 13:53, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think that Freoh's making the language in the proposal more succinct may be helpful (watch for keeping to logical quoting, however), but tacking on the fact that the constitutional language is hypocritical (or is it? since slaves probably didn't count as "the people", at least not in full measure) as well as the overly specific example of the slave trade (which was to be abolished by 1808, there is that) being used (what about Native Americans, Indians, etc.?). Dhtwiki (talk) 07:12, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you feel like it's overly specific? The Constitution directly protects the slave trade, and reliable sources have described this specifically as a contradiction. Do you have something in mind for generalizing the "blessings of liberty" concept to Indigenous people? Freoh (talk) 21:43, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've already made the point that this article is not the place to spend a lot of time picking apart constitutional language for its inaccuracies and manifestations of hypocrisy. That would deserve its own article. It's certainly not the place to point out protection of the slave trade in particular, especially since that was a compromise to gain Southern votes and because many Northern states abolished slavery around this time, if not before. Dhtwiki (talk) 06:42, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Are you suggesting a POV fork? I don't think that it would be neutral to limit this article to content that presents the U.S. government in a favorable light. Why don't you think that the slave trade is worth mentioning? It seems like the compromise to gain Southern votes would be more appropriate in § History. Freoh (talk) 09:44, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Penlite, what conservative scholarship do you want to include? Is there a viewpoint that you feel is underrepresented? Do you have reliable sources that contradict my information? Do you have reason to doubt the reliability of my sources? I still don't see how the current version adheres better to the WP:RS and WP:NPOV guidelines than my proposal. Freoh (talk) 12:47, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Freoh:(copy to: @Dhtwiki:@Coolcaesar:) Again, I find both versions (original and yours) as unduly and unnecessarily biased -- yours particularly in its choice of very left-wing sources -- arguably outside the mainstream historical literature (mostly liberal) on Constitutional history -- in an obvious repudiation of the concept of WP:NPOV and WP:RS.
If you were to insist on citing these authors as sources, then you're reasonably obliged to find concurring statements from right-wing authors -- or simply replace them all (left and right) with comparatively centrist, mainstream authors.
Plenty of moderate-liberal, centrist and conservative historians exist as alternatives (or counterbalance) to your left-wing sources. Moderate-liberal work by Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr. and Jill Lepore, centrist work by David McCullough, conservative works by Jon Meacham, Joseph Ellis, Michael Beschloss, Russel Kirk, Wilfred McClay or if you wanted a far-right counterbalance to your reference to far-left Howard Zinn, consider Paul Gottfried (if you can find them agreeing on your point).
Where no overwhelming consensus exists on a point, simply delete that text, and its marginal reference(s) -- or find an agreeing conservative reference to match with the liberal reference, or replace your far-liberal source (and, NO, there is not even a supporting consensus among liberals for Zinn's POV epic, and your proponents of Critical Race Theory are not yet mainstream, at least not outside the liberal arts college) with two or three mainstream references from reputable historians, such as recipients of the Bancroft Prize or the Pulitzer Prize for History.
Your recently proposed edit looks good, at first glance, but it's built on a foundation of sand -- poorly chosen supporting references -- so is not yet fit material for Wikipedia (any more than the text it presumes to replace).
Too busy to get any deeper on this here. On an article of this importance, and on an issue so fundamental to the subject, you should invite comment from a truly representative swath of prior editors on this article.
~ Penlite (talk) 08:18, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I still don't understand why you want to delete my text (or which text exactly you want to delete). What content am I adding that differs from the mainstream? Why don't you think that my sources are reputable? If you have additional content you want to add or additional sources you want to cite, the burden is on you. Freoh (talk) 11:08, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Penlite, which version do you prefer, the original or my proposal? If your answer is "neither," then could you make your own proposal? Freoh (talk) 11:53, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The WP:RS and WP:NPOV guidelines favor my proposal over the current version, and I haven't seen any other proposals. If you have no objections, I'm going to replace the current version with my proposal, and then you can feel free to add the right-wing authors you want. Freoh (talk) 14:31, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Freoh: (copy @Dhtwiki:, @Coolcaesar:), Again, the person making an edit has the sole responsibility for documenting their edits with WP:RS source(s) that validate the edits. You have not yet done so, and appear stubbornly determined to ignore wide evidence that they are not WP:RS and/or WP:NPOV sources (Frankly, some of those authors seem to take great pride in not having an NPOV).

Come on, Freoh: It's probably not that hard to find a WP:RS and WP:NPOV source for each of your proposed footnoted edits. Unless you just can't bring yourself to tolerate such sources, or are too lazy to do your own homework. I will not do it for you. I'm tired of cleaning up after impulsive and irresponsible editors who think it's someone else's responsiblity to take care of their responsibility.

If you need help finding WP:RS / WP:NPOV corroborating sources for your edit, and cannot or will not do it yourself, then please confer with members of the WP:WikiProject United States Constitution -- perhaps starting with those who are as conservative as you are liberal, if you insist on retaining your far-left sources in the edit. ~ Penlite (talk) 09:49, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Freoh:: P.S.: In case you have not carefully read my remarks here, nor reviewed my User page, let me be clear, again, I do not favor far-right nor far-left sources. I'm committed to WP:NPOV -- and if you'd cited sources that were anywhere near that standard, I would have acquiesced by now. I'm not sure though, that you grasp the concept of WP:RS nor WP:NPOV. Please study those topics -- not looking for loopholes, but looking, with an open mind, for guidance. ~ Penlite (talk) 10:03, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't insist on these sources in particular, but I do insist on fixing the neutrality issues in the current text. Could you point me to evidence that my sources are not reliable? As I pointed out before, the burden is on you to add the conservative information you're asking for. Freoh (talk) 13:12, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Freoh:Again, you are not reading me clearly. It is your responsibility alone to provide WP:RS for your edits. And, IMHO, you should only cite hard-right-leaning sources to counter-balance hard-left-leaning sources, pairing them together on points where they agree. And, frankly, I'm not sure that far-right/left sources constitute WP:RS, at all, even in evenly matched pairs. Ideally, you'll use neither -- instead substituting something comparatively neutral, supporting a WP:NPOV. But that's the job of the editor making the edit, not mine or anyone else's. ~ Penlite (talk) 19:32, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Again, how are my sources unreliable? Any reliable source is going to be biased in some way. Freoh (talk) 19:44, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Freoh: Arguably, yes -- but not WP:Fringe theories, which permeate the works of some of your sources.
@Freoh:: As a courtesy to you, I will provide you a credibility check on just one of your sources: Zinn. But it's your job to do this, not mine, and I'll let you do your own due diligence on your other sources, on your own time.
re: Zinn, Howard, and his book you cite, here are comments just from the two leading liberal newspapers in America, including their reviews of his book you cite.:
  • Powell, Michael: "Howard Zinn, Historian, Is Dead at 87"; Jan. 28, 2010, New York Times, describes Zinn (in his obit) as: "Proudly, unabashedly radical,..." and notes he was a poli-sci prof, not a history prof, at B.U., when writing People's History[5]
  • Kirn, Walter: "Childrens Books" (book review of Howard Zinn's Young People’s History of the United States, and, indirectly, of his A People’s History of the United States), June 17, 2007, New York Times: Describes Zinn's "...Young People’s History..." as "a condensation and simplification of'" the "quite condensed and simple People’s History of the United States... a summing up.... [Zinn believes] telling the truth is not Job 1 for historians. Editing and motivating are. The goal is to 'pick and choose among facts' so as to 'shape the ideas and beliefs' that will 'help us imagine new possibilities for the future.'"[6]
[(In other words: "Historians are supposed indoctrinate, more than inform" -- a bit presumptuous; not WP:NPOV, and not WP:RS ~Penlite)]
  • Kammen, Michael (professor of American History, culture at Cornell): "How the Other Half Lived" (review of Howard Zinn's "A People's History of the United States"), March 23, 1980, Washington Post, Prof. Kammen -- while endorsing Zinn's vision of "a new approach... history from 'the bottom up'... more egalitarian." -- concedes "I wish... I could [declare] Zinn's book a great success;... it is not. [It's] a synthesis of the radical... revisionist historiography of the [1970s], [with] many of the strengths [but] most of the weaknesses [in] that highly uneven... literature. ...much [focus on] historians, historiography and historical polemic... [leaving] little [room] for the substance of history. ...Phillip Foner,... radical historian,... cited nine times, [but] Thomas Jefferson... mentioned only eight. [The author's] sins of omission are... more serious. ...virtually no interest in religion... (a force... for three centuries... phenomenal... in American life...). [He] has little interest in ideas:...philosophical...or...more practical, technological... [Zinn] talks about the Berrigan brothers [yet] mentions just once,... in passing, John C. Calhoun,... who... made [a nearly-singular] truly original contribution to [American] political philosophy. [He] mentions Karl Marx [frequently],... Well then, who and what is discussed? Figures of social protest and political criticism..."
"We... deserve a people's history;... not [Zinn's] singleminded, simpleminded history,... of fools, knaves... Robin Hoods. [Rather] a judicious people's history... people [deserve to get] their history whole; not just [what] will anger or embarrass them."[7]
  • Zakaria, Fareed: "Stephen Bannon’s words and actions don’t add up," (op-ed), February 9, 2017, Washington Post, says: "In a strange way, [Trump advisor] Bannon’s dark, dystopian [vision] of U.S. history [most resembles] that of Howard Zinn, a... far-left scholar whose ...People’s History... is a tale of... ways [that] 99 percent of [the] Americans were crushed by [America's] all-powerful elites. ...the Zinn/Bannon worldview [is that] everyday people are [just] pawns manipulated by... evil overlords."[8]
(When finished here, read the lede to the Wikipedia article on Howard Zinn, largely citing his own self-description, which hardly suggests WP:NPOV, or anything anywhere near it -- instead declaring a WP:Fringe POV.)
Respectfully, ~ Penlite (talk) 21:24, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you that Zinn is biased, as are all sources. If you are arguing that I'm promoting a fringe theory, then please provide sources that contradict the presented facts. I have yet to see evidence that Zinn is unreliable aside from your interpretation of a novelist's review of a children's book. Freoh (talk) 14:32, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not all sources are equally biased even if all are to some degree. Those writers who are careful with their facts, critical of their own hypotheses, and fair-minded toward opposing views are going to write better history than those who aren't. Penlite excerpted four criticisms from two newspapers that should be considered among the most likely to be sympathetic to Zinn and his aims. Dhtwiki (talk) 08:06, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've asked multiple times now [1] [2] [3] [4] for evidence that Zinn is not one of the reliable writers who are careful with their facts, and all I've seen is evidence that he is biased. Could you answer the question? I've just updated my proposal with an additional source. Freoh (talk) 10:42, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dhtwiki pointed out that I wasn't correctly using logical quoting, so I'll edit my proposal to be formatted correctly:

Current Proposal
Rather, it sets out the origin, scope, and purpose of the Constitution. Its origin and authority is in "We the People of the United States". This echoes the Declaration of Independence. "One people" dissolved their connection with another,[clarification needed] and assumed among the powers of the earth, a sovereign nation-state. The scope of the Constitution is presented as twofold. First, "to form a more perfect Union" than had previously existed in the "perpetual Union" of the Articles of Confederation. Second, to "secure the blessings of liberty", which were to be enjoyed by not only the first generation but for all who came after, "our posterity".[1][disputed – discuss] Rather, it sets out the origin, scope, and purpose of the Constitution. Its origin and authority is in "We the People of the United States", echoing the Declaration of Independence in its claim to speak for all Americans.[9][1][2] The scope of the Constitution is presented as twofold: "to form a more perfect Union" and to "secure the blessings of liberty",[1] though this contradicts the legal protection given to the slave trade in § Article I.[3][4]

Freoh (talk) 14:35, 2 January 2023 (UTC) (edited Freoh (talk) 10:42, 5 January 2023 (UTC))[reply]

@Drdpw:@IAmChaos:@Winner 42:@CookieMonster755:@Libertybison:@Smasongarrison:@Fayenatic london:@TheVirginiaHistorian:@GregJackP:: Ladies & Gentlemen: I've been struggling with User:Freoh to help him get to a well-documented revision of a key passage in the article Constitution of the United States. I'm getting exhausted with the effort, and must withdraw for a while to attend to other responsibilities -- and, frankly, to cool down. However, the changes he intends to make are (IMHO) significant, important, and largely valid and appropriate.

Nevertheless, they are being offered with documentation from what appear to me to be some wildly biased and unreliable sources, edging (or leaping) towards WP:Fringe. If this was an article about a grocery chain, or a small-town politician, I wouldn't care so much -- but this proposal is about Wikipedia's characterization of the basis of the most important and influential law in the Western Hemisphere.

This really needs collaborative input from experienced Wikipedians -- liberal, centrist, and conservative -- who have shown actual commitment to this subject, and to WP:NPOV. I selected you because you either are listed as a member of Wikipedia:WikiProject United States Constitution or recently edited it. Please engage here, with User:Freoh, as you can afford the time and effort. I must withdraw. Very respectfully,

~ Penlite (talk) 23:21, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ a b c d e Adler & Gorman 1975, p. 26, 80, 136.
  2. ^ a b Zinn, Howard (2003). A People's History of the United States, 1492-Present (New ed.). New York. p. 632. ISBN 0-06-052842-7. OCLC 50622172.((cite book)): CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)
  3. ^ a b Zuberi, Tukufu (July 2011). "Critical Race Theory of Society". Connecticut Law Review. 43 (5): 1575 – via HeinOnline.
  4. ^ a b Bell, Derrick (2008). And We Are Not Saved: The Elusive Quest for Racial Justice. New York: Basic Books. p. 7. ISBN 978-0-7867-2269-3. OCLC 784885619.
  5. ^ Powell, Michael: "Howard Zinn, Historian, Is Dead at 87," January 28, 2010, New York Times, retrieved January 2, 2022
  6. ^ Kirn, Walter: "Children's Books," (book review of Howard Zinn's Young People’s History of the United States), June 17, 2007, New York Times, retrieved January 2, 2022
  7. ^ Kammen, Michael (professor of American History, culture at Cornell): "How the Other Half Lived" (review of Howard Zinn's "A People's History of the United States"), March 23, 1980, Washington Post, retrieved January 2, 2022
  8. ^ Zakaria, Fareed: "Stephen Bannon’s words and actions don’t add up," (op-ed), February 9, 2017, Washington Post, retrieved January 2, 2022
  9. ^ Collier, Christopher (1987). Decision in Philadelphia: The Constitutional Convention of 1787. James Lincoln Collier (reprint ed.). New York: Ballantine Books. p. 103. ISBN 0-345-34652-1. OCLC 16382999.

RfC about whether to specify to whom the Constitution refers when it discusses the People, protections, and liberty

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
In this discussion, the community considers suggestions by Freoh to amend our article on the US Constitution. I say "proposals", plural, because Freoh changed his proposed wording on several occasions in response to editors' concerns. Contrary to suggestions below, this is allowed. One of the best uses of Wikipedia's Request for Comment process is to workshop changes to articles and see what would gain consensus.
By our rules, any changes to this article would need rough consensus before they could be made. There is no such consensus to be found here. Therefore these proposed changes should not be made, and if made, may freely be reverted.
Nevertheless, Freoh and those who support him are welcome to continue to workshop alternative changes to the article.—S Marshall T/C 16:04, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article discusses the People who created the Constitution, the liberties it originally grantedguarded, and the protections it continues to provide. Should we specify that "the People" were a small number of powerful white men, that the "liberties" did not extend to enslaved Africans, and that "protections" do not apply to colonized subjects?      — Freoh 21:13, 2 February 2023 (UTC) (edited 12:26, 4 February 2023 (UTC); 16:02, 3 March 2023 (UTC))[reply]

Survey

  • To clarify, the limited and selective proposed language carries undue weight, as the Framers could also be sourced as intelligent, trustworthy (by those who appointed them to serve in this endeavor), dedicated, patriotic, and many other descriptors. Use them all or use none. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:48, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Many of the framers were intelligent and business minded. That was an asset, as structuring a government and making it a viable success incorporates the same worldly mindset. Some were wealthy, but not filthy and worldly rich, like the European kings and bankers lurking behind the scenes, who chartered most of the plantations, and whose output, i.e.cotton and tobacco, largely went to Europe, esp Britain and France, right up until the Civil War. i.e.Proportionately, little to do with the Founders. What sort of government would have been founded if all the framers were simple, naive and idealistic farmers and merchants? In any case, the phrase "powerful white men" is inaccurate, divisive and misleading for reasons mentioned above, and ignores much for any objective account of these people. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 05:17, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with Ixtal. — At this point in time, unfortunately, the idea of "while male" is so often put out there as some derogatory sort of an entity, which ignores the idea that in any given country the inhabitants were largely homogeneous, be it Asian, Japan the Middle east, etc. "Powerful white males" in the colonies set up the most free nation in the history of the world, where many thousands of people, trying to escape religious and political persecution, came to the new world, and to also start a new life where, beforehand, kings, lords, and their bankers, had for several centuries oppressed or smited these people to one extent or another, usually to the greater. There was very little middle class in Europe and elsewhere. In America, the middle class comprised the greater portion of the population, by far, for the first time in human history, and with a Constitution they had a voice, with 'teeth' in it. It's unfortunate that enslaved Africans didn't come into the fold right off, but throughout history, racial and cultural barriers were overcome slowly, and today, here we are, still the most free nation on the planet. Okay, guess I'm on a soapbox here, but that's actually the glaring truth, imo, and this perspective needs to be better reflected in any proposal that attempts to put out the idea that "powerful white males", or any other such phrase, in a callous manner, authored the Constitution. Many Founders were mindful of these advents, which is well covered in the Founding fathers of America article, that several editors here, for quite some time, have been forging. A visit to the talk page there might give you a better idea of the debates, sometimes heated, but insightful, that occurred there. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 05:11, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And the bit about "colonized subjects" -- see Insular area#Citizenship -- this is POV, and there seems to be a consensus to oppose the proposal. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 23:12, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of your speculation about the Founders' intentions, the small number of white men and the lack of constitutional protections for colonized subjects are facts,[1][2] not points of view.      — Freoh 23:48, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

The question is where it should be mentioned. In the NPOV noticeboard Freoh was asking for it to be in the lede of Preamble to the United States Constitution. I did some quick searches to see how the Preamble was discussed and even the ACLU's page, such as it was, made no mention of these issues - it was one of the top results but it just listed the text. The question is a matter of WP:DUE weight. For it to be in the lede it would have to be prevalent in surface level discussions of the topic. These topics are mentioned in the Criticisms section, is that not adequate to give DUE weight to them? The RFC seems somewhat malformed because the article does already mention this. Freoh, where else do you want it mentioned, the lede, the main body of the article? Can you be more specific about this? —DIYeditor (talk) 11:31, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@DIYeditor: just because you had one too many tildes in your sig invocation and theres only a date showing. But for a substantive comment, I'd also like to see proposed text, which is usually standard in RfC's like this. The proposal as is suffers from the issue of being oversimplified to the point of just being wrong, as I point out in my contribution to the survey. That could very well just be an artifact of how its been summarized for the RfC. Placed in proper context and with accurate background I could see myself supporting it. --(loopback) ping/whereis 11:40, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think I was ever asking for it to be in the lede. My main concern is that the People, liberty, and protections are fairly vague terms (and somewhat abused by propaganda), so ideally the "to whom" would be clarified as soon as these terms are discussed in the body of this article, but I'm not very particular. I've made a few proposals trying to get this information included, but they've been shot down as "fringe theories". I was trying to use this RfC to draw attention to the fact that this information is widely-covered and noncontroversial, and that the article could be significantly more specific, but I see now that I made my summary too concise. Here are my past proposals:
  • I have a proposal for addressing the lack of protections for colonized subjects. Insular areas are already mentioned, but given all of the content in this article about "protections," I think that it would be helpful to discuss the lack of constitutional protections for colonized subjects specifically.
  • For the People, I originally proposed an in-text mention. When this was reverted, I proposed a footnote instead, but this was also deleted.
  • For Liberty, I again proposed a footnote, hoping that this would be less controversial than an in-text mention, but this was also deleted.
Again, I'm not picky about where this content is mentioned. But I reject the notion that this information is a "fringe theory" – I haven't seen anything that contradicts it, just different historians who focus on different aspects of the history. I'm also open to re-wording this information in a more neutral way, though I'd like to point out that my wording doesn't fit the description of "editorializing" in Wikipedia's guidelines, and I'd argue that the labels of "protections", "liberty", and "the people" are at least somewhat value-laden.      — Freoh 13:07, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Freoh: Oh I apologize, I had not paid close enough attention in the noticeboard discussion and thought it was about the lede. I think it would be reasonable to include footnotes discussing these issues. I would say be careful on the phrasing not to load the discussion with things like asserted that the elite delegates to the convention represented the general American populace - this word choice does seem to be editorializing. Asserted there is getting awfully close to "claimed" which is the quintessential example in WP:NPOV of WP:WTW. That the word asserted was already there does not change this. We could attribute such characterizations to certain writers, or phrase things completely neutrally without trying to inject that kind of tone and insinuation. Similarly so constitutional protections do not extend to colonized subjects uses a certain loaded and shall we say specialized terminology and we should avoid any such phrasing. Aside from the phrasing I support what you are aiming for. —DIYeditor (talk) 21:19, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Freoh and DIYeditor: Footnotes are intended to provide additional information—they can't introduce large issues or offer sweeping conclusions on their own. Freoh is correct that mainstream sources don't contradict the facts of his sources. What he's missing is that the body of scholarship offers a more complete picture and then a different view of those facts. The subject of powerful white men and 18th century politics, for example, has been explored by dozens of sources over the course of hundreds of pages. And that's a far smaller matter than the issues the other footnote raises: liberty, protections, slavery. I agree these topics should be addressed, just not this way. Allreet (talk) 02:59, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So where should they be addressed and should the primary mention of the topics which Freoh is concerned with make no reference to these other issues? I have seen varying types of information in footnotes over the years, including some that offered contradictory information that wasn't included in the main body of the text. I'm not familiar with manuals of style or standard practices on it. As far as Wikipedia:
Footnotes are used most commonly to provide:
references (bibliographic citations) to reliable sources,
explanatory information, or
source information for tables and other elements.
Footnotes or shortened footnotes may be used at the editor's discretion in accordance with the guideline on Variation in citation methods.
And I don't such more more explicit direction than that about what information can be conveyed there (but I may have missed it). —DIYeditor (talk) 06:01, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
DIYeditor and Freoh: These issues should be addressed in relevant sections, and given their importance and complexity, with greater depth. Footnotes are clearly not the way to do that. Allreet (talk) 09:16, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fine with me, keeping in mind what I have said about phrasing and tone. —DIYeditor (talk) 05:41, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
DIYeditor, how would you prefer that we refer to colonized subjects? I'm just using the terminology in the sources I'm using; is there another term that you think is more standard or neutral? What about it is "loaded"?      — Freoh 20:31, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's not any particular one of these phrasings that you used, and perhaps that one is fine, but why is it not "colonial subjects" instead of "colonized subjects"? The people weren't colonized, the land was, and it was probably done before many of them were even alive. Could as easily be "conquered persons" or "noncitizens" or "alien residents" or something - not that these are used in sources, just saying there are many possible ways to phrase it. Do all sources on the early history of the US use "colonized subjects" or is it sources taking a particular approach? Is this a new way of phrasing things or long standing? Even "colonial subjects" sounds to me like how persons subject to the British Empire were described, not noncitizen inhabitants of the United States and its territories.
Since we are putting it in Wikipedia's voice we should use the most standard terminology and I don't remember histories I read in the past using the term "colonized subjects", FWIW. It would be fine to attribute (or quote) precisely what your sources have said as what they have said, but Wikipedia's voice should be free of quasi-neologisms and "engineered" terms of recent design, particularly keeping in mind that we are paraphrasing, not quoting (except when it's a quote). I see now that Dhtwiki had exactly the same concerns as I about your phrasings, and I had not seen what they had written. —DIYeditor (talk) 05:38, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would be fine with colonial subjects. As I previously stated in an earlier discussion, I'm not talking about the early history of the US. The US didn't have unincorporated territories in its early history, but it does today.      — Freoh 11:40, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Colonial subjects" would be fine, if we were talking about the British Empire and its colonies, and I believe would actually be the standard phrasing. The people in question were not in colonies of the United States, but in its home territory. I will look into this more but my impression right now is that "noncitizens" would be a good choice. —DIYeditor (talk) 11:47, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The US government doesn't refer to its empire as colonies of the United States because colonialism is unpopular, but independent academics do refer to these as colonies. I don't think that "noncitizens" would be appropriate because some of these colonized subjects have been officially granted citizenship by Congress.      — Freoh 12:17, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think you may be equivocating here. You just above said you were referring to a time when the US didn't have unincorporated territories and to the very early history of the US (the time of the writing of the Constitution), and now you seem to be referring to a time when it did ("American imperialism"). Also you were specific about "unincorporated" territories in your reply, but I had said only "territories", so I'm not sure what you were correcting.
If someone was granted citizenship they would have rights under the Constitution, wouldn't they? And are you again equivocating about time period?
That some sources may take a critical view of the US does not mean that is the prevailing view (or terminology) in the sources we are relying on for most of the article. We can attribute these views ("So-and-so has characterized such-and-such as being this-and-that") but to state it in Wikipedia's voice we need to use the prevailing terminology and viewpoint expressed by the majority of sources, or a neutral paraphrasing along those lines if we aren't using their exact terms. We might not even be able to attribute "colonized subjects" without quotes because it is not a literal expression, the persons were not colonized. —DIYeditor (talk) 12:53, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The topic strikes me as being outside this conversation, even though it's referenced in the RfC's opening question. At best the points raised might warrant mention in a subparagraph, but for what reason I can't fathom in terms of WP:N and the Constitution's development. Is there another article, for example, on constitutional law, where it would be more relevant? Allreet (talk) 14:50, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I see now that this was too much for a single RfC. These are really three separate issues:
  • The fact that the People were all powerful white men is most relevant to the 1787 constitutional convention.
  • The fact that liberty did not extend to enslaved Africans is most relevant to the first 20 years of the Constitution, when the legality of the slave trade was constitutionally enforced.
  • The fact that protections do not extend to colonial subjects is most relevant after the Insular Cases of 1901, when the Supreme Court formally ruled that Constitutional protections do not apply to residents of the recently conquered colonies (regardless of whether these residents were citizens). This is still true today.
I'm not sure what the prevailing terminology is for colonial subjects. I'm basing my terminology off of the sources that I'm using, which probably differs from the official U.S. government terminology.      — Freoh 11:19, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your first two facts are widely accepted and have been explored extensively by scholars, particularly the second, slavery. Just before you filed the RfC, I pointed out that slavery isn't even mentioned in the article until half way through. You agreed and suggested that addressing this would require a lot of time reading a lot of sources. I'm doing that and taking copious notes as I go. I'm hoping others will do the same.
The other fact, powerful white men, is more problematic since it's a pejorative characterization and the view expressed in your footnote is inaccurate. The convention and the Constitution's ratification were part of a political process in which the the People were represented.
Of course, the convention's outcome was most unfavorable for the fifth of the population not spoken for, namely enslaved and indigenous peoples. We need to address that. The larger question is, given the politics and the times could we have expected more? The prevailing view is probably not. In any case, all we can do is try to provide a balanced account of what most sources say occurred. Allreet (talk) 16:23, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I'm trying to do, add balance to an article that makes simplistic generalizations. The opinion that the People were represented is controversial and should be attributed if mentioned. I don't see how powerful white men is pejorative; lots of sources comment on the fact that all of these delegates were white, male, and powerful, but I'm open to wording it differently.      — Freoh 14:47, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Because choosing just one aspect and not-easily-defined descriptor, "powerful", seems undue. They were also intelligent, civic-minded, literate (not a universal trait in the late 18th century), influential, revolutionary, brave, white men. "Powerful" really doesn't describe anything outside of each reader's perception of the word, it does not contain enough specificity. As for some of your other concerns, please realize that the constitution was written to be self-correcting. The amendment process eventually corrected the slavery issue. It is understood in the literature that the Framers could not have ended slavery in 1787 because the constitution would not have been approved, the attempt to write a new constitution would have ended there in Independence Hall, and even if written the document would not have been ratified by the required states. The new nation was not ready to address the issue but, as mentioned, did leave within the document a way to eventually do so (after a war 73 years later, where hundreds of thousands of men died keeping the founder's and nation's promise of a perpetual union). Randy Kryn (talk) 11:30, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Describing them as intelligent is an opinion, but there's plenty of objective evidence (and coverage in reliable sources) that these men were disproportionately wealthy and held powerful political offices. And again, when I'm talking about the People, I'm talking about the 1787 political convention, and the sections § History and § Original frame, so I don't see how later political activity is relevant.      — Freoh 14:44, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Being selected by their fellow state leaders to attend the convention can also be described as trustworthiness. That they crafted a document and a government the likes of which the world had never seen before, a government which stopped the import of slaves in 17 years, historically ended legally accepted slavery in 78, and has stood up to time and distress for a quarter of a millennium to, for example, accomplish 182 years later what would have been considered a miracle at the time, men walking on the Moon, makes their intelligence as a volunteer crowd source obvious. So yes, intelligence as a descriptor also fits, as do many others. Add a few of those and you've got a good sentence. The "later political activity", a step-by-step refining of the union, was built into the document as inevitable given time, because the Constitution provided for its own self-correction. That seems to have everything to do with relevancy. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:14, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Freoh, your footnotes are hardly scholarly observations. As another editor pointed out about the slavery footnote, it's as if readers didn't know slavery existed back then and it needed to be brought to their attention. The same would go for Washington, Jefferson, Madison, and company. People need to be told they were not only powerful but white and male. Uh, your point? Allreet (talk) 17:56, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Again, their trustworthiness and intelligence are opinions that should not be stated in wikivoice. The facts that they were extremely wealthy and politically powerful should take priority.      — Freoh 17:55, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Facts...should take priority if there's some point to be made, as well as an effort to tell the whole truth. The related facts: Most of these guys made substantial financial sacrifices to do what they did, and a fair number of them—particularly Washington and Jefferson—were land (and slave) rich but cash poor. Only a few founders were extremely wealthy, your opinion, and none in the sense that we use the term. Robert Morris (the so-called financier of the Revolution) would be the closest example of a Bill Gates or Warren Buffet, but the other side is that he ended up in debtor's prison and died a pauper. Jefferson? He had to sell his extensive library to make ends meet and also died deeply in debt. He should have been in debtor's prison, too, except nobody had the chutzpah to foreclose on one of the foundingest of fathers. Allreet (talk) 18:56, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I'm talking about their status at the time of the 1787 convention, so I don't see how their later financial troubles are relevant here. Do you have any reliable sources that explicitly contradict these?

As we shall see in more detail later, the United States was a "deferential" society, in which a small elite of the wealthy and wellborn expected to lead, and in fact were expected by the people to do so. To a considerable extent, the very people to whom the poor farmers owed money were also the judges who convicted them and the colonels who called out the militia to enforce the decrees.
— [3]

Edmund Morgan sums up the class nature of the Revolution this way: "The fact that the lower ranks were involved in the contest should not obscure the fact that the contest itself was generally a struggle for office and power between members of an upper class: the new against the established." Looking at the situation after the Revolution, Richard Morris comments: "Everywhere one finds inequality." He finds "the people" of "We the people of the United States" (a phrase coined by the very rich Gouverneur Morris) did not mean Indians or blacks or women or white servants. In fact, there were more indentured servants than ever, and the Revolution "did nothing to end and little to ameliorate white bondage."
— Zinn, Howard (2003). A People's History of the United States (New ed.). New York. p. 84. ISBN 0-06-052842-7. OCLC 1150994955.((cite book)): CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)

The new rhetoric of citizenship was a white, masculine language. The social and economic needs of the white moneyed classes, north and south, resulted in a 1787 constitution (and its 1791 bill of rights) that, amidst all its discussion of representative government and individual liberties, implicitly excluded African-Americans from that government and explicitly protected the institution of slavery. The racial inferiority of African-Americans was judged to make them mentally and emotionally unfit for citizenship.
— Westerkamp, Marilyn J. (2002). "Taming the Spirit: Female Leadership Roles in the American Awakenings, 1730–1830". In Lovegrove, Deryck W. (ed.). The Rise of the Laity in Evangelical Protestantism. London: Routledge. p. 106. ISBN 0-203-16650-7. OCLC 54492712.

     — Freoh 19:17, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's not even necessarily a matter of contradicting them. As far as stating in Wikipedia's voice rather than attributing, we need to go by WP:DUE which is going to require the analysis of how a broad range of sources characterize things. WP:CHERRY picking a few sources that you agree with doesn't work. —DIYeditor (talk) 13:52, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Are you arguing that this is a fringe theory? These are five reputable historians and highly reliable sources. Most of the facts in this article are supported by only one source. If you are arguing that I'm "cherry picking", then please provide evidence.      — Freoh 17:55, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If 20 prominent sources take a less critical view of an issue that would outweigh 3-5 of a more critical nature. The Colliers are more or less in agreement with the prevailing view; Zinn and Westerkamp are not. Call the latter what you want, but their perspectives are not exactly mainstream and hardly justify your stand-alone one-liner. So the question is, what do you propose doing with this alternative viewpoint? Allreet (talk) 19:57, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Freoh: You asserted that the people were not represented, yet Collier contradicts this and says the small elite of the wealthy and wellborn was expected to lead...by the people. So what are you saying? Westerkamp talks about the new rhetoric of citizenship...a white, masculine language. What was so new in 1787 about either the language of the founders or a male-dominated society? Of course other sources don't contradict this; they report it but without editorializing in the directions you favor.
And no kidding blacks and indigenous were excluded. They still are, but that's not our axe to grind. Oddly enough, for all the inequality back then, there was less poverty in the Americas than in England and Europe as a whole. And despite property requirements, four-fifths of white males could vote for whom they wanted as representatives.
As for contradicting Zinn, many scholars do. WP's article on his People's History cites a round-up of sources who contend his is a black-and-white story of elite villains and oppressed victims. Matter of fact, sounds very much like your own approach.
DIYeditor hit the nail on the head. The views you've emphasized—with the same three sources over and over—need to be addressed in accordance with WP:DUE. Allreet (talk) 21:24, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Freoh, you asked for contradictions, so I looked into Zinn's references to Richard B. Morris and Edmund S. Morgan. It turns out both historians are at odds with the point Zinn is trying to make in his People's History of the United States.

As for another refutation, in the book that includes Morgan's essay is an essay by Bernard Bailyn on "The Central Themes of the American Revolution". Bailyn's premise is at distinct odds with Zinn's view and yours (page 28):

Everywhere in America the principle prevailed that in a free community the purpose of institutions is to liberate men, not to confine them, and to give them the substance and the spirit to stand firm before the forces that would restrict them. To see in the Founders' failure to destroy chattel slavery the opposite belief, or some self-delusive hypocrisy that somehow condemns as false the liberal character of the Revolution—to see in the Declaration of Independence a statement of principles that was meant to apply only to whites and that was ignored even by its author in its application to slavery, and to believe that the purpose of the Constitution was to sustain aristocracy and perpetuate black bondage—is, I believe, to fundamentally misread the history of the time.

Allreet (talk) 08:50, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Again, we should be prioritizing facts over opinions. These broad and vague questions—whether the People were represented and whether the Constitution was actually liberating—are ultimately opinions on which there is disagreement. Polling favorable versus critical sources is beside the point. The fact that the Framers were largely wealthy and powerful elites is an uncontroversial fact with lots of coverage. I'll work on a new proposal that addresses some of the issues people have raised here.      — Freoh 11:27, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Do the preponderance of sources from across the years say "wealthy and powerful elites" or "upper class" or "landowning" or even "gentry" or something else? I mean all the sources on the topic, not just the ones you are preferring to draw from. I'm still getting a sense of trying to force the use of a certain terminology rather than mere facts. If we could separate the facts from the potentially loaded phrasing, as was discussed above, I think there would be less room for disagreement on the inclusion of this. —DIYeditor (talk) 13:12, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Do multiple sources emphasize "wealthy and powerful elites"? No. I've searched dozens of sources from the bibliography, and the words are all but absent as a phrase, and the subject, rarely mentioned as a factor in the outcome. True, all of this has had lots of coverage, but so far, Freoh has referenced just three sources, one of which doesn't have much to say about this small elite of the wealthy and wellborn and two of which indulge primarily in polemics, that is, opinion over fact.
Based on the numerous sources I've reviewed, the people as a whole were well represented. While significant groups were excluded, a greater portion of the population had a say in the end result than in other revolution up to that time. Similarly, the Constitution did a better job in liberating people than any previous document of its kind. As for polling favorable versus critical sources being beside the point. I disagree, since that's how we determine "the prevailing view" and with that our editorial directions. Allreet (talk) 17:58, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm open to rewording; do you have suggestions? The criterion for inclusion is not that the information has to be addressed in the preponderance of sources. DIYeditor, are you suggesting that we should delete any facts in this article backed by fewer than three sources? Allreet, are you saying that it is just an opinion that the Framers controlled disproportionate wealth and power?      — Freoh 13:56, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, even a single WP:RS can be fine. The question is WP:DUE and if the view or phrasing is contradicted or not held by other WP:RSs on the same topic. If, just for illustration I'm not saying this is the case, 20 of the best RSs refer only to the democracy of the Constitution and 1 source refers to it as a tool of "powerful white men" or "elites" then that view will probably need to be attributed rather that stated as a simple fact. Omission of the characterizations found in a minority of sources may be as good as contradiction. I think you have consistently skirted around the issues of WP:DUE (and possibly WP:NPOV as a whole). Why do you object to the use of attribution to secure the inclusion of the sources and POVs you want to see represented? Seems better than not having them included at all.
As to the wording it will take some research on my part. I believe I've usually seen it phrased as something like "white landowning males" or "white male landowners" broadly speaking (as to whom the Constitution initially protected the rights and interests of). —DIYeditor (talk) 14:29, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm trying to keep this neutral, and I'm not opposed to mentioning that the Constitution laid out a democratic republic. I was thinking that was already clear enough from statements like with the people voting for representatives. The Constitution was designed to achieve a balance between democracy and aristocracy, and I don't see how this contradicts the fact that the Framers were powerful white men.      — Freoh 16:58, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Freoh and DIYeditor: I've said several times that I don't regard these issues as matters of opinion; the disagreement is over how the facts should be addressed. As for sources, a single source is okay in some instances, but with fringe views, even multiple sources can be given short shrift or simply ignored, depending on other factors. This happens to be the case with Zinn and Westerkamp, who are not just reporting the founders' wealthy status but are editorializing about it. The prevailing view is closer to Collier and Collier's thought: the people expected those of high standing to lead.
I was about to post the above, when Freoh issued his latest assertion, that the Constitution was designed to achieve a balance between democracy and aristocracy. Here, finally, is what the dispute over wealthy elites is actually about. For everyone's edification, Charles Beard introduced this idea, about the Constitution benefiting the 1%, in 1913 with An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution. The concept was later adopted by Howard Zinn and other ideologues intent on lambasting the Constitution as a conspiracy benefiting the rich. Beard has since been debunked by leading scholars, starting with Bernard Bailyn of Harvard and more recently by Amar Akhil Reed of Yale. Allreet (talk) 23:08, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that Zinn and Westerkamp have opinions does not make their facts unreliable.      — Freoh 23:42, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say their facts were unreliable. The opinions they offer based on those facts are not because both have political axes to grind. What we're getting, then, is not history but polemics. My question is what are your sources for the Constitution was designed to achieve a balance between democracy and aristocracy, because that also sounds more like political theory than fact? Allreet (talk) 01:37, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We are getting history. That the facts are presented alongside relevant opinions does not make the facts any less historical.      — Freoh 11:58, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Article 4, Section 4: "The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government..." The U.S. is a republic, not a democracy. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:36, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
These terms (democracy and republic) are etymologically and historically synonymous and gained this nuance you assert primarily through the views of Madison which were not even widely accepted in his time, or since then. Clearly the US government is both democratic and a democracy. —DIYeditor (talk) 13:15, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about the U.S. Constitution, which uses the words 'republican form of government". I'm not using nuance, these are the words of the document. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:42, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Again, there is no difference in meaning between the words. I suggest you read this Britannica article thoroughly. Being a republic is not exclusive of being a democracy, in fact, they are interchangeable words to most people. The distinction you're making is often cited by some people and I'm not quite sure why, but I don't think holds much weight linguistically or in real world use of the word "democracy". —DIYeditor (talk) 13:55, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You've using the definition of "representative democracy" for "democracy". I'm citing the Constitution. This is a tangential non-argument anyway, as the RfC is not about what is or isn't labeled a 'democracy' in form or function. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:03, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Freoh, I get what you're saying about the facts, except the opinions are not relevant if they're not true or accurate. So if you said in a sentence, "Nearly all of the delegates were wealthy", fine, because it's accurate. If you said what Westerkamp does, The social and economic needs of the white moneyed classes, north and south, resulted in a 1787 constitution, that's only her opinion and it's not accurate since most mainstream sources would disagree. As for Zinn, who expresses something similar by quoting others, he is misrepresenting what those sources say, as I've already pointed out. Allreet (talk) 21:34, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The People proposal

It seems that I have finally convinced some people that this deserves due weight. I'll make the wording of my proposal more explicit:

Current Proposal
The opening words, "We the People", represented a new thought: the idea that the people and not the states were the source of the government's legitimacy.[4][5] Coined by Gouverneur Morris of Pennsylvania, who chaired the convention's Committee of Style, the phrase is considered an improvement on the section's original draft which followed the word we with a list of the 13 states.[6][7] ... The opening words represented a new thought: the idea that the people and not the states were the source of the government's legitimacy.[4][5] In this case, "the people" who attended the convention were largely aristocratic white men.[8][9][10] Coined by Gouverneur Morris of Pennsylvania, who chaired the convention's Committee of Style, the phrase changed the section's original draft which followed the word we with a list of the 13 states.[6][7] ...

How's this? I'm avoiding footnotes and sticking to mainstream facts. Is this neutral enough?      — Freoh 15:18, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose The sentence you propose to insert is, with respect, blatant POV, and not really accurate. It suggests that the Framers were basically a cabal of property owners making their own rules, rather than representatives of a democratic (if stratified and unequal -- but Athens and Rome were much more so) process. But thanks for making a more specific proposal! RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 23:17, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I removed We the People to eliminate redundancy: it is already linked and quoted in § Preamble, both in the text and in the image caption. I think ONUnicorn brings up a good point, that there are a few different notions of "representation" that sometimes get blurred: whether the demographics of the convention corresponded to the general American population, whether the delegates were legitimately representing their people, and whether the government itself is sufficiently democratic. I am having some trouble differentiating this concisely, so it seems to me that the best solution here is to keep the politics of the convention in § 1787 drafting, and limit this section to describing the results, so that it can mostly be in present tense, like the other sections in § Original frame. Given that this article is already too long (as Jim.henderson previously mentioned), I think some trimming could be helpful. How's this?

Current Proposal
Main article: Preamble to the United States Constitution
The Preamble, the Constitution's introductory paragraph, lays out the purposes of the new government:[7]

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

The opening words, "We the People", represented a new thought: the idea that the people and not the states were the source of the government's legitimacy.[4][5] Coined by Gouverneur Morris of Pennsylvania, who chaired the convention's Committee of Style, the phrase is considered an improvement on the section's original draft which followed the word we with a list of the 13 states.[6][7] In addition, in place of the names of the states, Morris provided a summary of the Constitution's six goals, none of which were mentioned originally.[11][12]
Main article: Preamble to the United States Constitution
The Preamble, the Constitution's introductory paragraph, lays out the purposes of the new government. Although only propertied white men could originally vote for legislators,[13][14][15] the opening words emphasize that the people (rather than the states) ultimately legitimate and empower the centralized government:[7][4][5]

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

I originally used the word aristocratic because that was the wording used in my source, but I think it's only appropriate if we're focusing on the convention itself.      — Freoh 16:13, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just tack on "...although only propertied white men could originally vote for legislators", with suitable citations, to the end of "that the people and not the states were the source of the government's legitimacy" in the original, without further rearrangement, and you might come close to something that's acceptable. And I don't know why we need to reference Howard Zinn on this. He's not a consensus historian, even if reading him will knock you on your ass. Dhtwiki (talk) 19:37, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
None of this works better than the original, and the RfC seems a snow close to not use the suggested wording. Continuing to change words and putting up new proposals within this RfC itself seems to indicate that the nominator knows the change has not passed and is now doing a form of forum-shopping, interestingly, within the RfC. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:23, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why is this proposal not "acceptable"? Given that this article is too long, we should be working to shorten it, not lengthen it.      — Freoh 14:29, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your proposed text is unacceptable. My counter-proposal would cause the article to be lengthened. I have to agree with Randy Kryn, and there is, generally, so much time spent on your proposals for so little gained in enhancing articles. Dhtwiki (talk) 21:06, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Is this better?      — Freoh 13:28, 21 February 2023 (UTC) (edited 14:11, 2 March 2023 (UTC))[reply]
Yes, in comparison with the original, it's better. However, it's still too negative for what should be a neutral, straightforward introduction. It's akin to starting with, "The Constitution, while it created a frame of government that's survived two centuries, really didn't represent the views of the people." Later on you could explore this, but not in the first sentence. It's still pushing a political POV that seeks to shine a dark light on most everything. As for what's fringe, I couldn't have been more explicit. Zinn and Graeber are focused on class warfare—the rich versus the poor—as a theme, which is far afield from the prevailing view.
None of this strikes me as being in the interests of readers. What would serve those interests IMO would be to document what's missing in the first half of the article, the number one issue in 1787 and one that more than any other determined both the short and long-term outcomes: slavery. Here's where we need to be critical of the founders, not condemnatory but not forgiving either. As for additional issues of relevance, the congress.gov source you provided parallels the editorial direction of most sources. One example: Patrick Henry questioned who authorized the framers to speak for the people. His point and the response should be addressed because it's highly notable, which is why it's part of the consensus approach to the Constitution's story. Allreet (talk) 18:37, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think "though less than 3% of Americans voted in favor of ratification" is either particularly negative or against the interests of the reader, assuming it is properly cited and accurate. —DIYeditor (talk) 21:05, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
DIYeditor, the phrase may not be negative per se but its placement in the lede is. Of all the things to write about the Preamble, is this among the most notable, one of the 3-4 things readers should know immediately? Does any other historian begin their discussion of the Preamble on such a note? What's not in the interests of readers is Freoh's consistently negative approach, for example, the phrasing "the people were the source of the government's legitimacy, but not really".
A straightforward treatment, the one followed by most historians, is to describe the Preamble in neutral terms and then provide details that flesh out the story. I cannot access the source so I have no idea what it says about the 3% but on its own it's misleading because it omits a crucial detail: that the people were represented in the Constitution's adoption through legislators they elected. Hence, many people didn't get to vote directly, but that doesn't negate the fact initially stated. Allreet (talk) 14:15, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, if this is based partly on the number of legislators who voted to ratify it and excludes people who voted for them, that could be quite misleading and that paints it in another light. So the actual enfranchised population was much higher than 3%. At this point I am growing a bit tired of Freoh's approach to this article but I will wait to see their response. —DIYeditor (talk) 18:15, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, the 3% figure is including the people who voted for legislators. About 100 thousand people voted in favor of ratification out of a population of about 4 million.      — Freoh 01:23, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, regardless of that, Allstreet made addressed the heart of the problem about as convincingly as anyone can. This is not one of the top few things with which nearly any academic historian would begin a discussion of the Constitution or any part of it. Display name 99 (talk) 03:07, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We don't have to present this information in the same style as our sources. On Wikipedia, facts precede opinions, so we should prioritize the fact that less than 3% of the country was represented over the opinion that the People legitimate the Constitution.      — Freoh 13:02, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, yeah we do. We give weight to certain facts over others based on how they are presented in reliable sources. Display name 99 (talk) 14:50, 23 February 2023 (UTC) Well, I guess in light of the policy, I should rephrase. Does it have to be in the same style in the sense that it should look the same and read the same way? No, not necessarily. But the substance has to be the same. So while the tone of our article here might be different than that of sources, we could not, for example, treat a certain subject as being of substantially higher importance than the sources do simply because we feel like it. That violates one of Wikipedia's most basic principles. Display name 99 (talk) 18:10, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not trying to treat a certain subject as being of substantially higher importance than the sources do, and I'm not doing it simply because I feel like it. Are you saying that the legitimacy of the Constitution and the People who voted for it are outside the scope of this article? Which of Wikipedia's most basic principles am I violating, and how?      — Freoh 23:24, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Freoh You are giving substantially more weight to certain details than most sources do. Based on much of what you've said so far, your motivation in all of this appears to be less than neutral. In your previous proposal, you also misused sources by synthesizing material to come up with a unique phrase not supported by any single source. These would be the primary basic principles of concern. As for your current sources, since I can't access them, I would appreciate if you would provide a quote or passage that indicates only 3% of the population voted to ratify the Constitution or voted for legislators who supported ratification. Allreet (talk) 20:14, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Let's focus on one proposal at a time. Right now, I'm talking about the 3% one. Here's a direct quote:

See, e.g., Larry G. Simon, The Authority of the Framers of the Constitution: Can Originalist Interpretation Be Justified?, 73 CALIF. L. REV. 1482, 1498 n.44, 1499-1500 & n.48 (1985) (estimating that, because only property-holding adult white males were enfranchised, and not all of them supported ratification, only 2.5% of the population of the United States at the time voted in favor of ratifying the Constitution).
— Strauss, David A. (2012–2013). "We the People, They the People, and the Puzzle of Democratic Constitutionalism". Texas Law Review. 91: 1969.

     — Freoh 01:40, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Potential weaknesses

By 1787, property requirements were being relaxed, so in some states (I'm tied up at the moment and will enumerate them later, with sources) you only needed to be a taxpayer. But in NY state, the requirement was dropped entirely for this occasion. The source also doesn't address legislators who were elected, and most voting was at the state conventions. Meanwhile, the issue was as hot as the presidential election of 2016. Now consider that males would be about half of the population and 4/5 of them were white. Do you have another source, meaning this is fairly weak? Allreet (talk) 15:58, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Here are a few:
  • "roughly 2.5% of the population voted in favor of the Constitution's ratification"[18]
  • "See ... Simon, ... estimating that, because only property-holding adult white males were enfranchised, and not all of them supported ratification, only 2.5% of the population of the United States at the time voted in favor of ratifying the Constitution"[16]
  • "Professor Larry Simon calculates that only about 2.5% of the population voted in favor of the ratification of the Constitution."[17]
  • "According to estimations, only 2.5% of the population of the United States at the time voted in favour of ratifying the Constitution (since only property-holding adult white males were empowered, and not all of them supported ratification)."[1]
  • "See Larry G. Simon, ... (collecting sources and estimating that 'roughly 2.5% of the population voted in favor of the Constitution's ratification')"[20]
What do you think is weak here? Do your sources give different estimates, or are you arguing based on your own original research?      — Freoh 21:25, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the weaknesses:
  • The five cites provided amount to little more than one source, Larry Simon, since the others all refer to him but say nothing in terms of confirming his "estimate" vis a vis their own research. (This presumes Roznai is also citing Simon.)
  • Unable to access the sources provided, I can't determine the validity of the 2.5%, but I do question it in several respects. For one, it's absurdly low, and it's also not clear whether the percentage accounts for states where ratification elections were held versus those where convention delegates were appointed by popularly-elected legislatures.*[21][22] To get a sense of the numbers, 971 delegates voted for ratification versus 575 against, a 2-1 margin if you average the results in each state (my math is based on Warren's state-by-state results).[23]
  • Related to this, "property qualifications" were not as exclusionary as your sources seem to indicate. It's estimated 60-65% of white males were qualified to vote under state constitutions as either taxpayers or property owners.[24][25][21]
  • Since the framers wanted the people's consent, several states relaxed or eliminated the requirements specifically for the ratification vote.[26][27][21]
  • The greatest weakness here is that you're trying to demonstrate the illegitimacy of the Constitution with a handful of sources versus the possibly hundreds of books and papers that accept the document's authority as resting with "We the People".[28][29][26][27]
* One of the complexities in assessing the voting, as Spaulding indicates on page 130: More Anti-Federalists were elected in New York than Federalists, yet the state's convention voted in favor of ratification. Did the Anti-Federalist delegates who "defected" ignore the wishes of voters? You could say that, except by the time of the convention, the required nine states had ratified already, so the decision in New York, as in Virginia, North Carolina, and Rhode Island, was also a matter of electing to remain in the Union.Allreet (talk) 15:19, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Allreet, the document's authority as resting with "We the People" is your opinion. As I've previously explained, facts precede opinions on Wikipedia, so we should not exclude facts from Wikipedia simply because they cast doubt on your opinions.      — Freoh 02:04, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Freoh: My statement about "We the People" is not an opinion, but is based on three of the sources I cited:
  • Richard Beeman, page 412: (The Constitution) did recognize "we the people" of the nation as the ultimate source of political authority.
  • Murray Dry, page 281: the Constitution was but a proposal until ratified by the people, through specially chosen conventions.
  • Akhil Reed Amar, page 5: the Preamble laid the foundation for all that followed. "We the People of the United States...do ordain and establish this Constitution..."
And contrary to your accusation that I'm trying to exclude facts from Wikipedia simply because they cast doubt on (my) opinions, what I oppose are the statements you're injecting out of context to create false impressions about the Constitution's legitimacy, particularly your footnotes, which I should remind you are the subject of this RfC. The same objection applies to your phrase about the 3%, though what you've proposed is not relevant to the RfC. Allreet (talk) 21:14, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You were opposed to footnotes, so I am trying to incorporate your feedback into my proposal and reach a compromise. Why do you believe that the phrase about the 3% is out of context? I would argue that your partial quote about the ultimate source of political authority is more out of context.      — Freoh 02:03, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like the 3% should to be attributed per WP:NPOV and WP:DUE. As with most of what you have wanted to include, attributing it is the path to getting included which avoids the major problems. Also may be getting into WP:STICK territory here because as far as I can tell you don't have consensus even for the lesser footnote or attribution options, yet keep plowing ahead with bold statements in Wikipedia's voice in somewhat WP:IDHT fashion —DIYeditor (talk) 10:21, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I have edited the proposal to include an attribution. I am aware that I do not have consensus, which is why I am discussing here on the talk page. What specifically do you feel like I am not hearing?      — Freoh 14:11, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I just said this discussion has nothing to do with the RfC. That needs to be heard.
So forgetting what I just said about the RfC and in answer to your question about context, the lead of an article or section is not the appropriate place for introducing novel ideas. The point is, if something is not widely accepted, it doesn't belong in the lead, not as a footnote, not as a phrase. However, assuming the 3% has sufficient support, it would be appropriate to address the assertion later on in a deeper examination of We the People and ratification.
For an idea of what the lead and later discussions should address, primarily, please take a look at the opening chapter of Akhil Reed Amar's America's Constitution: A Biography. Besides an overview of the Preamble and the ratification process, you'll find a retort to the phrase rich white men, which Amar points out is used to "mock" the founders. Per WP:LEAD, a mock is something that doesn't belong in a lead either. Allreet (talk) 16:10, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Freoh: What's said in the proposal about voting and privilege had little to do with ratification. Those restrictions were either relaxed or dropped in most states for the popular vote. You really do need to read the chapter I recommended. Allreet (talk) 16:19, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Forrest McDonald, in his 1958 work, p. v, We the people : the economic origins of the Constitution, explains that both Beard and Turner had a remarkable capacity to break away from the dogmatic conventions that often shaped historical interpretations in the early 20th century and were highly influential in shaping later interpretations regarding the Founders, and The People, however, he warned that, as these two men helped to get historians out of one rut, they created another between the two, maintaining that most historians eventually fell somewhere in between the two schools of though held by Turner and Beard. The backgrounds and views of the founders, even if they were all wealthy, vary considerably, and are well documented at this late date, and are embodied in the term We the People. It would be a self defeating endeavor for anyone to attempt to define the founders, and We the People, in terms of race and wealth, or as aristocrats. As such, we should resolve the existing RfC before were further deliberate the merits of other proposals. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:30, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As ONUnicorn pointed out earler in this conversation, I was admittedly blurring the lines a bit between the people who wrote the Constitution, the people who the Framers believed they represented, and the people who actually voted in favor of ratification. In the interest of moving toward a consensus, I have struck through the word "powerful" in the original RfC wording to make this clearer.      — Freoh 16:02, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Liberties proposal

I will be clearer about what I am proposing in regards to liberties. Again, I am not particular about wording, as long as it is clarified that the liberties originally enshrined by the Constitution did not extend to African Americans. Given that people have been opposed to the use of explanatory notes, I am proposing the following more concretely:

Current Proposal
Generally favoring the most highly populated states, it used the philosophy of John Locke to rely on consent of the governed, Montesquieu for divided government, and Edward Coke to emphasize civil liberties.[30] Generally favoring the most highly populated states, it used the philosophy of John Locke to rely on consent of the governed, Montesquieu for divided government, and Edward Coke to emphasize civil liberties for white Americans.[30]
Many liberties protected by state constitutions and the Virginia Declaration of Rights were incorporated into the Bill of Rights. Many white liberties protected by state constitutions and the Virginia Declaration of Rights were incorporated into the Bill of Rights.

I also think that § Article I should mention the constitutional protection of the Atlantic slave trade in some form.      — Freoh 01:50, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, since you seem determined to detract attention away from the RfC, and to keep everything in proper context , any such statement should also include that Jefferson, a key Founding Father, went on to outlaw the Atlantic slave trade, which African tribal chiefs were a central part of. You seem to be, imo, more interested in focusing on slaves, than you are over the idea that the Revolution, and ultimately, the Constitution, which opened the door to freedom of religion, speech, the press, etc, inspired other revolutions around the world, starting with the French Revolution, and which also laid the groundwork for national abolition over the states. Unfortunately it took a civil war to effect this. Any such statement, if it actually makes it to the article, will be contextualized with a brief statement in this regard, and I'm sure there will be an overwhelming consensus on that note. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:34, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am not determined to detract attention away from the RfC. The RfC asks whether this article should specify that the "liberties" did not extend to enslaved Africans, and some editors have objected to a previous attempt to convey this information through explanatory notes, so I am trying to compromise and demonstrate another way that this information can be clarified. I am focusing on slaves at the moment only because this article is not giving slavery the due weight that it deserves. Your synthesis connecting the Constitution to later politics seems outside the scope of this article to me.      — Freoh 15:48, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's really a matter of opinion.  Some sorts of SYNTH are perfectly acceptable. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:35, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Freoh: My impression is: here we go again. Neither statement is supported by sources, and all we're getting is another attempt at proving your "white" thesis. You just wrongly accused me on my personal Talk page of being disruptive, yet you don't see how counter-productive your three-month crusade of disputes has been. In February, for example, virtually no progress was made on the Constitution article, aside from two paragraphs I added to the lead, and the same is true of the James Madison article.

As Dhtwiki told you earlier, "so much time spent on your proposals for so little gained in enhancing articles". And as DIYeditor just indicated, it's nigh time to put down the stick. We're going nowhere with the POV you're trying to advance, in circles. Accordingly, I am asking the RfC's reviewing editors to address this because it's clear you're intent on continuing despite the consensus of the community. Allreet (talk) 01:01, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Again, the fact that white men were in power is a fact,[1] not a thesis. If we are going nowhere, it has more to do with your failure to listen.      — Freoh 12:23, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's also a fact that Asian men are in power in China. Your words have been read by all, with your obvious fixation on race. Not agreeing with where you're going with this is not the same as not listening. At this point it seems like you simply want to make some sort of negative gesture about white men being in power. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:27, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What is negative here? I am trying to keep my wording neutral. Why are you opposed to mentioning the racial issues relevant to the Constitution? Why do you want to discuss liberties without clarifying that they did not extend to African Americans?      — Freoh 01:40, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Opposed"? These questions are inappropriate and your issues have been addressed. Saying that the Constitution only pertained to white men, is a misnomer. Slavery had not been abolished at the time of ratification, while the 13th Amendment, abolishing slavery, was based on the Constitution. No where in the Constitution does it say "whites only", or anything to that effect. If you wish to say the Constitution only pertained to powerful white males, or white men in power, or any other such statement that attempts to infer this idea, out of context, it will come off racially charged and play on the racial sentiments of everyone, and not being entirely naive, I'm sure you know this. Advancing Federal legislation over the states abolishing slavery was put on hold because the entire issue of abolition would have divided the yet to be Union, ruined any chance of ratification, and a civil war would have occurred long before 1860. Many of the founders wanted to do away with slavery as was done in the northern states, but they were not so idealistic as to push the issue on the Federal level at that time. If we're going to include this sort of racial issue it should be presented in this context, as has been already explained for you.. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:49, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My proposals are for § 1787 drafting and § Influences on the Bill of Rights, so I do not see how the 13th Amendment is relevant here. We should not omit important elements of legal history just because the Constitution was later changed.      — Freoh 13:13, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The addition of amendments, including the first ten - the Bill of Rights - occurred because the Constitution was written as a self-correcting document. The only difference between the relevance and legality of the first ten amendments and the thirteenth is the amount of time it took to actively correct and improve the document. All amendments seek to attain a "more perfect union", and the thirteenth, continuing the Constitution's drafting process, did so. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:44, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Are you saying that in § 1787 drafting we should present the current (amended) Constitution as if all of the amendments were originally part of the Virginia Plan?      — Freoh 00:59, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The phrase rich white men is intentionally derogatory, not a "fact" but an expression of contempt. It's also offered through the lens of Recentism, which focuses on current views to the exclusion of the broader historical context:

"America's Founding gave the world more democracy than the planet had thus far witnessed. Yet many modern Americans, both lawyers and laity, have missed this basic fact. Some mock the Founding Fathers as rich white men who staged a reactionary coup, while others laud the framers as dedicated traditionalists rather than democratic revolutionaries. A prominent modern canard is that the very word 'democracy' was anathema to the Founding generation." — Akhil Reed Amar, America's Constitution: A Biography (page 14)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Allreet (talk • contribs)
How is this is relevant to the question of whether constitutional liberties extended to African Americans? Randy Kryn's suggestion to write § 1787 drafting based on later amendments is exactly the recentism that I am trying to avoid.      — Freoh 22:24, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]


Time to wrap up?

This RFC was initiated over 30 days ago. Furthermore, it seems to me we're no longer discussing the original RFC but have veered into the consideration of proposals that are only somewhat related. Freoh, please see Ending RFCs for the procedure to follow for closing the RFC, provided you believe relevant discussion has run its course and consensus has been reached. If the steps for closing are not clear, I'm sure the WP:Help desk can provide the necessary advice. Thank you. Allreet (talk) 15:50, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The bot has already removed the ((rfc)) template, and I am willing to keep discussing until we reach a consensus. I am trying to discuss the original RfC; my proposals above are concrete attempts to clarify who the People were and who the liberties applied to.      — Freoh 22:27, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Once the template is removed, discussion related to the RfC should end. Of course you're welcome to begin new topics elsewhere though I'd recommend waiting to hear from the reviewing editors if what you plan to propose is an extension of the ground we just covered. Allreet (talk) 01:13, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Allreet and Freoh: — Am I missing something? The article is still tagged, while the RfC has not been closed, while another editor has just chimed in with an Oppose vote. As for consensus, there is an overwhelming consensus against Freoh's proposal, the other proposals notwithstanding. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:27, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
( Also pinging Randy Kryn and Rjensen )
  • The Constitution was/is the law of the land and pertains to the American people, and while women couldn't vote they were still protected by Constitutional laws. I fail to see why the term We the People needs any "clarification". Are there reliable sources that say the term only applied to the signatories? This proposal seems like another attempt to keep this article in a continuous state of debate and controversy. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:34, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There are still some unanswered questions in the discussion above, so I would not say that there is overwhelming consensus. There are reliable sources that say less than 3% of the American population voted in favor of ratification.[1] Also, the American people did not originally include racial minorities and does not include colonized subjects,[2], so I don't know why you put clarification in scare quotes.      — Freoh 23:58, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Clarification" is what you proposed, so the term is in quotes. If the quotes scare you, no one can help you with that. On top of the Original RfC, for which there is an overwhelming consensus opposing, you have made five other proposals, none of which have been resolved on a consensus basis, so I fail to see how you can say you have any sort of consensus anywhere. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:07, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, the people didn't actually vote on ratification, the delegates/representatives did, who represented the people, so to say only 3% of the American people favored the Constitution is nonsense and an obvious attempt to perpetuate what seems like a veiled attack on the Constitution. . -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:12, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Ratification votes were held in many if not most states, though I haven't pinned down the exact number. I agree the 3% is nonsense, but I say that without exactly knowing what it represents. In any case, this is not directly tied to the RfC's questions, meaning that's not what we're here to resolve. Please see my new comment below regarding the closing of the RfC. Allreet (talk) 00:23, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Freoh, Gwillhickers, Randy Kryn, DIYeditor, and Dhtwiki:: According to the message from the bot that removed the RfC template, the discussion will be archived tomorrow, March 9. What happens then, I'm not sure, though I believe reviewing editors will chime in and further comment will be blocked. If that doesn't happen within two days, by March 11, I'll post a request on WP:Help desk. P.S. I've alerted those I consider to be the most active editors in the RfC, but if I've overlooked someone, I apologize. Allreet (talk) 00:31, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Freoh, by my count, over 20 editors have responded, and without taking sides, I'd say sentiment is sufficient to indicate a consensus. As for "unanswered questions", you keep raising new ones that are not directly tied to what the RfC was created to decide. The 3%, for example, was introduced 19 days into the RfC, so for certain we're not here to resolve that assertion or any of your proposals. Allreet (talk) 01:10, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
​I think that you misunderstand what consensus means. If you want to argue that the 3% is nonsense, then you have to verify your information. Content that I have supported with five different reliable sources does not become undue simply because some editors just don't like it. Are you suggesting that I continue this discussion in a separate section instead? I feel like this talk page already has too many sections.      — Freoh 02:01, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:STICK —DIYeditor (talk) 02:57, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Freoh: Now you're going to argue about consensus. At what point does the merry-go-round stop? In short, I agree with DIYeditor.
As for the 2.5%, as I mentioned before, only one source, Larry Simon, calculated this number. The other four cited Simon. Thus you only have one historian behind your statement: historians estimate that less than 3% of Americans voted in favor of ratification. Furthermore, if you look into Simon's sources, which I did, Brown says 18-19% of the population were adult males, that's 700,000 (3.9 million x .18). Then Brown says 80-85% of these were eligible to vote; using 80%, that's 560,000. Then, ignoring Brown completely, Simon quotes Hacker's unsourced 160,000, in addition to citing Beard who's explicitly refuted by Brown (page 238).
Brown points out that Beard and his sources were trying "to prove how restricted the franchise was", when that wasn't the case. Hacker and Beard do the same with the state ratification votes—they try to make them appear close. But if you tally the state votes, as I did, the margin was 971-575 delegates in favor of ratification. That's 62%-38% straight up, and if you account for the variations in the size of the state delegations (by averaging the margins), ratification won 70%-30%.
My point, again: if you want to make a significant assertion, you need a significant number of sources to back it up—on their own. So in this case, if you cite Simon, I'll cite Brown, and since no other source has calculated the 2.5%, what's this estimate worth? Allreet (talk) 05:28, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I do have a significant number of sources to back it up. This information has gotten lots of coverage in tier 1 sources. You do not get to minimize this coverage based on who these sources are citing. Your Brown source has fewer than 238 pages, and to tally the state votes yourself is original research.      — Freoh 14:00, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For the third time, Simon's number is debatable and the other four sources didn't calculate anything despite your claim that it's the estimate of multiple historians. And if you will please pardon my mistake on Brown's page number; it's 69 not Hacker's 238, though my link to the page was correct, yes?
As for the state delegate totals, I used them simply to illustrate the attempt by Simon's sources to downplay the margin of victory for ratification. That's all. I wasn't seeking publication, only talking with you. I could have taken a lengthier route by quoting their misleading passages about the voting in individual states. Either way, seems to me Brown's point was well taken. As is mine: If you cite Simon, I'll cite Brown—and then I'll offer some of the vast research related to "We the People" from a few tier 1 historians, such as Amar (pp. 5-11), Bernstein (pp. 183, 199-205), Ellis (pp. 151, 185-186), Ferling (pp. 294-308), and Maier (pp. ix-xvi). Which is not to say your estimate is worthless. It's just not worth the weight you think it deserves. Allreet (talk) 19:25, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Good leg work Allreet. Yes, many of the delegates of the Constitutional convention at first thought that they were there to modify and improve on the Articles of Confederation, which served as the Colonies, soon to be States, Constitution during the war, with its short comings notwithstanding, kept a semblance of organization among the colony/states, to provide for the war effort -- a document sharply criticized during that time, however, by General Washington after the arduous winter at Valley Forge, with troops in dire need of supplies, that was hoped the colonies would had better provide for. I haven't as yet checked all your references, but it seems Bernstein, 1987, p. 199, hits the nail on the head:
. The Convention had no authority to impose the result of its work on the American people; it could only recommend the charter it had drafted to the Confederation Congress. Although the people eventually did adopt the Constitution, this process was neither automatic nor unopposed. The campaign for and against the Constitution raged in state legislatures and ratifying conventions, in newspaper essays and pamphlets. (emphasis added).
To say, in an isolated stand alone statement, out of context, that only 3% of the American People voted for the Constitution implies that 97% were forced with a Constitution, with all its checks and balances and liberties, they would rather do without. All things considered, I again say that's nonsense. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:55, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I do not see how my proposal implies that 97% of Americans would rather do without the Constitution, only that those 97% did not vote in favor of it. It is significantly more misleading to refer to only 3% of the population as the People. Allreet, could you quote the sentences that explicitly refute the 3% estimation? I read through your Brown source from 1956 and the numbers seem to match up with Simon's.      — Freoh 13:03, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The best reply would be a detailed one. So rather than burden the RfC. I'm starting a new section below on "Beard v. Brown". Allreet (talk) 16:41, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Freoh — You claimed that only 3% were in favor, which more than suggests that 97% were not, which is why we should always make statements in context. I've yet to see any source that explicitly says We the People refers to only 3%, or any other such ultra-low figure. The Constitution, a set of laws for all the People, was speaking on behalf of those people, regardless how anyone may have voted or not voted. The Constitution does not say, We the Delegates, nor does it say, We the Eligible Voters. Any sources that tries to assert such a narrow idea, trying to reinvent the word People, citing the numbers of those who voted, which albeit was a small percentage of the national population, is advancing a highly debatable speculation at best. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:24, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I did not say that only 3% were in favor. I said that only 3% voted in favor. The opposite of "voting in favor" is "not voting in favor" rather than "voting against".      — Freoh 14:06, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have posted a request on the WP:Help desk, under March 11, for help on closing the RfC to further comment and inviting reviewers to offer feedback regarding consensus/discussion on the RfC's questions. Freoh has indicated the 3% voting question has not been settled. While this is somewhat related to determining who "We the People" are, the issue wasn't introduced until two weeks into the RfC, plus it wasn't what editors were asked to vote on. The same applies to the additional proposals that have been posted. We participated in the RfC to answer the original questions, not a succession of new ones.

I should also point out that Freoh has changed the original questions again (on March 3) which I'm fairly certain is not allowed. Since most editors voted before these changes, I'd suggest the questions be reverted to their original state, which is what I'm going to ask of the reviewing editors as soon we learn who they are. Allreet (talk) 04:15, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

References

  1. ^ a b c d Roznai, Yaniv (2019). Albert, Richard; Contiades, Xenophon; Fotiadou, Alkmene (eds.). The Law and Legitimacy of Imposed Constitutions. Abingdon, Oxon. p. 72. ISBN 978-1-351-03896-6. OCLC 1061148237.((cite book)): CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)
  2. ^ a b Immerwahr, Daniel (2019). How to Hide an Empire: A History of the Greater United States. Farrar, Straus and Giroux. ISBN 978-0-374-71512-0. OCLC 1086608761. The Constitution's references to 'the United States,' the argument continued, were meant in that narrow sense, to refer to the states alone. Territories thus had no right to constitutional protections, for the simple reason that the Constitution didn't apply to them. As one justice summarized the logic, the Constitution was 'the supreme law of the land,' but the territories were 'not part of the "land."'
  3. ^ Collier 1986, p. 12.
  4. ^ a b c d e Morton 2006, p. 225.
  5. ^ a b c d e Beeman 2009, pp. 332, 347–348, 404.
  6. ^ a b c d Bowen 1966, p. 240.
  7. ^ a b c d e f Bernstein 1987, p. 183.
  8. ^ Collier & Collier 1986, p. 76.
  9. ^ Westerkamp, Marilyn J. (2002). "Taming the Spirit: Female Leadership Roles in the American Awakenings, 1730–1830". In Lovegrove, Deryck W. (ed.). The Rise of the Laity in Evangelical Protestantism. London: Routledge. p. 106. ISBN 0-203-16650-7. OCLC 54492712.))
  10. ^ Zinn, Howard (2003). A People's History of the United States (New ed.). New York. p. 684. ISBN 0-06-052842-7. OCLC 1150994955.((cite book)): CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)
  11. ^ Congressional Research Service, U.S. Congress. "Historical Background on the Preamble". constitution.congress.gov. Constitution Annotated: Analysis and Interpretation of the U.S. Constitution. Retrieved January 16, 2023.
  12. ^ a b Warren 1928, p. 393.
  13. ^ Graeber, David (2013). "The Mob Begin to Think and to Reason: The Covert History of Democracy". The Democracy Project: A History, a Crisis, a Movement. New York. ISBN 978-0-8129-9356-1. OCLC 769425385.((cite book)): CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)
  14. ^ Westerkamp, Marilyn J. (2002). "Taming the Spirit: Female Leadership Roles in the American Awakenings, 1730–1830". In Lovegrove, Deryck W. (ed.). The Rise of the Laity in Evangelical Protestantism. London: Routledge. p. 106. ISBN 0-203-16650-7. OCLC 54492712.))
  15. ^ Zinn, Howard (2003). A People's History of the United States (New ed.). New York. p. 684. ISBN 0-06-052842-7. OCLC 1150994955.((cite book)): CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)
  16. ^ a b Strauss, David A. (2012–2013). "We the People, They the People, and the Puzzle of Democratic Constitutionalism". Texas Law Review. 91: 1969.
  17. ^ a b Rotunda, Ronald D. (April 1988). "Original Intent, the View of the Framers, and the Role of the Ratifiers". Vanderbilt Law Review. 41 (3): 515.
  18. ^ a b Simon, Larry G. (October 1985). "The Authority of the Framers of the Constitution: Can Originalist Interpretation Be Justified?". California Law Review. 73 (5): 1482. doi:10.2307/3480409. JSTOR 3480409.
  19. ^ Congressional Research Service, U.S. Congress. "Historical Background on the Preamble". constitution.congress.gov. Constitution Annotated: Analysis and Interpretation of the U.S. Constitution. Retrieved January 16, 2023.
  20. ^ Stein, Mark S. (2009–2010). "Originalism and Original Exclusions". Kentucky Law Journal. 98 (3): 398.
  21. ^ a b c Spaulding, E. Wilder (April 1939). "New York and the Federal Constitution". New York History. 20 (2). Cooperstown, New York: Fenimore Art Museum: 125, 130.
  22. ^ Maier, Pauline (2010). Ratification: The People Debate the Constitution, 1787–1788. New York: Simon & Schuster. pp. 140, 243, 535. ISBN 978-0-684-86854-7.
  23. ^ Warren, Charles (1928). The Making of the Constitution. Boston: Little, Brown, and Company. pp. 819–820.
  24. ^ Lutz, Donald S. (1987). "The First American Constitutions". In Levy, Leonard Williams; Mahoney, Dennis J. (eds.). The Framing and Ratification of the Constitution. New York: Macmillan. p. 77. ISBN 978-0029-18790-6.
  25. ^ Maier, Pauline (April 2012). "Narrative, Interpretation, and the Ratification of the Constitution". The William and Mary Quarterly. 69 (2): 389.
  26. ^ a b Amar, Akhil Reed (2005). America's Constitution: A Biography. New York: Random House. pp. 5–7, 279, 472. ISBN 1-4000-6262-4.
  27. ^ a b Wood, Gordon S. (1969). The Creation of the American Republic, 1776–1787. University of North Carolina Press. pp. 167–169, 535. ISBN 978-0807847237.
  28. ^ Beeman, Richard R. (2009). Plain, Honest Men: The Making of the American Constitution. New York: Random House. p. 412. ISBN 9781400065707.
  29. ^ Dry, Murray (1987). "The Case Against Ratification: Anti-Federalist Constitutional Thought". In Levy, Leonard Williams; Mahoney, Dennis J. (eds.). The Framing and Ratification of the Constitution. New York: Macmillan. p. 281. ISBN 978-0029-18790-6.
  30. ^ a b "Variant Texts of the Virginia Plan, Presented by Edmund Randolph to the Federal Convention". The Avalon Project at Yale Law School. Retrieved April 16, 2016.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Beard v. Brown...or 160,000 v. 560,000

Simplest is to just read Simon's footnote, which begins citing Brown (1956):

Brown's math, then, is: 18% of the population (3.9 million) were adult males, slightly more than 700,000, 80% of whom were eligible to vote, which is about 560,000. Simon downplays the 80-85% with the word "only", yet according to Brown (see the last bullet below), more than 80-85% were eligible to vote.

Simon, however, immediately ignores Brown's numbers and instead cites Hacker (1947):

Hacker's 160,000, as Simon indicates, comes from Beard (1913):

And Beard's estimate is based on Jameson (plus from what I can gather, in combination with other extrapolations):

Back to Brown, he says this about Jameson, Beard, and others:

Note: The 80-85% mentioned by Brown refers to Jameson's estimate that "one-fifth of the adult males were shut out" because of the property requirement, and he is saying the number eligible to vote was higher. However, this says nothing about how many people actually voted and Beard's estimate is speculative, that is, based on a lot of guesswork.

In short, given Beard v. Brown, the 2.5% is uncertain and the number of people who voted remains a matter of debate. Allreet (talk) 17:56, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Freoh, Gwillhickers, Randy Kryn, and DIYeditor: pings Allreet (talk) 18:03, 10 March 2023 (UTC) [Add:] @Rjensen:[reply]
We should also remember that many average citizens didn't have a mind for law, let alone were able to fully understand a document like the Constitution, but I would think that it's safe to say that, while many people had reservations about that Constitution, most were in favor of national unity and independence, regardless, esp so shortly after their victory against the British, and that the idea of We the People, is a reflection on these eminent ideas. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:29, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Passages were printed and commented upon in newspapers; discussed in taverns, on the streets, and in homes; and were dissected in speeches, as well as in the Federalist Papers, which were also published. As one author commented, the subject was the national pastime, the sport of the day. The Federalist position favoring a strong central government played better in the towns, while the Anti-Federalist, states rights view played better in rural areas. So sentiments ran high, but whether that spurred actual voting is an open question. Allreet (talk) 00:21, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)
Yes, these things were widely discussed, esp in newspapers, and esp in cities and towns where larger groups of people were more apt to gather. While a fair number of the Federalist papers were reprinted in newspapers, it wasn't exactly easy reading for many people. There's no denying that the Constitution, at first, was met with much reservation from a states rights perspective, but the need for a solid Union was becoming more evident, esp with Britain waiting in the wings, ever willing to pit one state against an other, which ultimately happened later with the British helping to arm and fund the Confederacy. I would image all the talk spurred voting, for or against, but another open question still remains, i.e.whether the term We the People was only a reference to a small percentage of a Independence minded population. It would seem that if most of the people didn't approve of the Constitution, it never would have been ratified. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:40, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Historians agree that Brown's deeply researched study is much better than Beard's thinly-based speculation. Rjensen (talk) 02:22, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the 2.5% is uncertain. Based on DIYeditor's suggestion, I added ... historians estimate that ... to the proposal to make this clearer. However, the only conflict that you presented is between only eighty to eighty-five percent of this population was eligible to participate and Jameson’s estimate of eighty or eighty-five per cent of voters among the adult men was too low. That figure is only one part of the 2.5% estimation, and your comparison between Brown's eligibility estimate and Hacker's participation estimate is a false equivalence. Even if you increased this number by 20% (that is, roughly 80% to 95%), that would not bring the widely-cited estimate over 3%.      — Freoh 13:32, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Freoh, although these are interesting discussions and Allreet's and Gwillhickers in-depth research has time-after-time answered and rebutted your concerns, you yourself appear to have the concerning un-Wikipedian habit of constantly not being aware of when the horse has passed away. This has occurred on this page to a worrisome extent, and likely other pages, as if you purposely attempt to wear volunteer editors down until they give up. Other editors have been indef banned for such attempts, and, in non-Wikipedian language, this is "not cool". Please be more aware of volunteer editor's time and play and edit accordingly, thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:13, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Freoh: historians estimate that is not attributing it. Attributing it would be naming the people who believe it is 2.5% rather than implying that a preponderance of the historians estimate that. Historian Charles Beard estimates that (assuming he has not already been named) or Beard estimates that... —DIYeditor (talk) 18:51, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Freoh, — Agree with Randy Kryn, this Talk page has been continuously inundated with ever changing and new proposals, four of which, including the RfC, have just been closed with a no consensus ruling, and it's rather clear that this proposal is going nowhere also. Several other editors have also made similar comments about this behavior. Editors are compelled to reply so as not to give the impression that these proposals have much or any merit and are being silently accepted. Currently the Talk page has approximately 125 browser pages of text, mostly made up of sections and proposals you initiated, and which have gone no where. At this point it's beginning to appear that your. capacity here at Wikipedia is that of a Single-purpose account, bent on a common purpose in an effort of casting aspersions on the U.S., using isolated and racially charged statements, trying to give the impression that the Constitution was forced on the overwhelming majority of the people, and so forth. --- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:36, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Gwillhickers and Randy Kryn, I am only trying to keep this article more neutral. DIYeditor, I would be okay with changing the attribution to include one of the historian's names:

The opening words, "We the People", represented a new thought: the idea that the people and not the states were the source of the government's legitimacy,[1][2] though historians such as Forrest McDonald estimate that less than 3% of Americans voted in favor of ratification.[3][4][5] Coined by Gouverneur Morris of Pennsylvania, who chaired the convention's Committee of Style, the phrase is considered an improvement on the section's original draft which followed the word we with a list of the 13 states.[6][7] In addition, in place of the names of the states, Morris provided a summary of the Constitution's six goals, none of which were mentioned originally.[8][9]

     — Freoh 05:04, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But at that point wouldn't we have to state how many Americans voted against ratification to not make it seem 97% of the country actively opposed ratification? I'm not sure any change is needed but wouldn't it be simpler to state voting at the time was restricted in many states to property holding white men with the exception of New Jersey where women enjoyed suffrage? BogLogs (talk) 07:39, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In response to Freoh, the "conflict" is the 400,000 difference—560000 less 160000—which Brown believes would be on the low side. In any case, by your own admission, the numbers are uncertain, a matter of contention and not established fact. Despite that, we should raise the question immediately, in an introductory sentence, and give approximately the same weight to speculation that we do to widely-accepted assertions?
That's not neutral; it's making an editorial point, one intended to cast doubt at the outset. Which is not to say the issue shouldn't be discussed, but as with most critical examinations in Wikipedia, it should come later, after the prevailing view has been presented and where greater detail can be offered. Allreet (talk) 15:14, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Allreet, could you show me the quote where Brown says that the estimate of 160 thousand total voters is on the low side? I have not yet seen evidence that this estimate is a matter of contention, and this estimate seems widely-accepted to me, unlike the idea that the American people as a whole legitimate the federal government. BogLogs, I am surprised that both you and Gwillhickers have assumed that 3% voting for a proposal means 97% opposing it, as the majority of the American population could not vote at all. To make this clearer, I propose the following:

The opening words, "We the People", represented a new thought: the idea that the people and not the states were the source of the government's legitimacy,[1][2] though historians such as Forrest McDonald estimate that less than 5% of Americans voted for delegates to the ratifying conventions.[3][4][10] Coined by Gouverneur Morris of Pennsylvania, who chaired the convention's Committee of Style, the phrase is considered an improvement on the section's original draft which followed the word we with a list of the 13 states.[6][7] In addition, in place of the names of the states, Morris provided a summary of the Constitution's six goals, none of which were mentioned originally.[11][9]

Would that be better?      — Freoh 21:55, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is also vague and still gives the impression that the Constitution was forced on 95% of the American people, which is no doubt what you're trying to suggest. And when you say "American" are you including women who couldn't vote and who make up approximately 50% of the population, and those under 21, which also makes up a huge chunk of the population. Stating what percentage of eligible voters voted for ratification would be the more honest thing to say. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:44, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, as it stands Im not sure any change would be an improvement from the current article and almost all of the changes mentioned would make the article less neutral than its current state. Also giving a look over this talk page, talk about beating a dead horse! BogLogs (talk) 13:18, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The question is also a matter of where...

Content is one issue. The other is where should it be used? As I've said several times, including during the RfC, what you're suggesting does not have the weight to be mentioned near the top of the section. It's not among the first things someone needs to know on the subject. In fact, I just said as much in my last comment:

Despite that (the uncertainties), we should raise the question immediately, in an introductory sentence, and give approximately the same weight to speculation that we do to widely-accepted assertions?...(critical analysis) should come later...after the prevailing view has been presented and where greater detail can be offered.

Allreet (talk) 04:34, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Another aporopriate place for what you want to add would be under Ratification where you'd be able to flesh this out. The connection between the Preamble and the ratification elections is tenuous at best. Meanwhile, the 3% issue needs more detail, little of which relates to the Preamble, whereas it's 100% relevant to ratification. Allreet (talk) 12:47, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I would be fine moving this point to § Ratification by the states, provided that we also cut out your vague and misleading text about how the people and not the states were the source of the government's legitimacy.      — Freoh 12:58, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My "vague and misleading text" reflects the prevailing view - what most historians have written: that the Constitution is a democratic document that resulted from an unusually democratic process. Freoh's view, the opposite of this, is largely based on a conspiracy theory, which is how Robert Brown (pp. 56, 61, 141, and 169) characterizes the motif postulated by Charles Beard and his followers. To summarize this conspiracy, in terms Freoh has been using, in 1787 aristocratic rich white men colluded to create a document intended to promote their economic and political interests.
While I appreciate Freoh's offer to discuss ratification in a more relevant context, I am not about to compromise what I do as an editor: to do my best to report what mainstream sources have to say. Allreet (talk) 11:28, 14 March 2023 (UTC) Allreet (talk) 11:28, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As I have tried to explain several times before [5] [6] [7], this article is already too long, and I think that we should limit ourselves to undisputed facts and omit contested opinions. We do not have to present information in the same wording as your preferred sources, especially when plenty of other reliable sources have taken issue with this presentation style. Are you arguing that it is not misleading to describe 3% of the population as the people? I agree with you that 3% is a lot more buy-in than contemporary European legal codes and that the ratification process was unusually democratic for white people at the time, but we should be presenting a global perspective, and the United States was not the first democracy in America.[12]      — Freoh 19:18, 14 March 2023 (UTC) (edited 01:25, 15 March 2023 (UTC))[reply]
The Colonies were settled by white people, and the founding documents were drafted, debated and signed by white people, which is nothing unusual as you apparently want readers to believe. "White people" were the only ones trying to establish an independent Union. Indians were not, and few if any slaves at the time were not nearly as concerned with the Constitution, if at all, as they were their freedom. So yes, the founding was established by white people, the same as the Japanese founded their own government. All along you've been trying to present this as some negative and unusual idea..
Now we have yet another one of your issues, that the article is too long. The readable prose size is only 76k. Btw, above you linked to this page rather than the correct one.
Last, the so called "Democracy" that existed among one tribe, the Iroquois, was hereditary based, an idea that was vehemently rejected by the colonists,. So called Iroquois democracy is an idea rejected by a number of historians, including Elizabeth Tooker, a professor of anthropology, who regards the idea as myth – all explained on the very page you linked to, btw. Democracy in America was based on the idea of the Rights of Englishmen, an idea that goes all the way back to the Magna Carta of 1215, and once again, it's becoming rather apparent that you are bent on slighting American history any way you can, which is one of the reasons your never ending proposals have continuously been failures. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:58, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You're right about the wrong link; I just fixed it. According to those guidelines, any article over 9000 words Probably should be divided, and this article currently has over 12,000. I do not see what in my proposal seems negative and unusual to you. I am mainly trying to remove undue puffery that describes 3% of the population as the people.      — Freoh 01:37, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
How's this for an introductory summary…

The framers of the Constitution were especially concerned with limiting the power of government and securing the liberty of citizens. The doctrine of legislative, executive, and judicial separation of powers, the checks and balances of each branch against the others, and the explicit guarantees of individual liberty were all designed to strike a balance between authority and liberty as the central purpose of American constitutional law.

I know it's somewhat vague in that it doesn't give any dates or names or hard numbers, yet it does offer facts, a distillation of what historians have identified as the product and meaning of the founders' labors. Anyway, it's what the Encyclopedia Britannica thinks its readers should know about the significance if the Constitution. There's nothing wring, then, with us doing something similar. Allreet (talk) 03:29, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am not opposed to including some of this information, but I do not see how this is relevant to the question of whether the people and not the states were the source of the government's legitimacy.      — Freoh 14:00, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The section should relate as to what percentage of the delegates/states voted for and against ratification. Again making a vague reference to all the American people, way over 50% of whom did not vote, can be misleading. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:45, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I just edited § Preamble to avoid making a vague reference to all the American people.      — Freoh 01:03, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's already been reverted by another editor, I would have reverted such a large change as well as a matter of consensus which is still clearly lacking after so many attempts. BogLogs (talk) 07:59, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Randy Kryn, could you please explain your recent reversion? I think that we should avoid making a vague reference to the people, given that it is disputed and potentially misleading.      — Freoh 18:46, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Freoh, as I said in my edit summary, you removed much of the Preamble section, so I reverted. Having a Preamble section and not mentioning Gouverneur Morris would be a (edit: loss to the page) WikiCrime, so I put the paragraph back. And the RfC result and the results of other discussions on this page don't seem to indicate that it would be okay to remove much of the descriptor portion of the Preamble section. That's all, simply put, and, in good faith, I have no intention of getting into one of those twenty-thousand word discussions with you. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:20, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Artem.G, could you explain your recent edit? It is misleading and disputed to describe 3% of the American population as representative of the people as a whole.      — Freoh 12:07, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I was not aware about the lengthy discussion here, but it looks that not many editors agree with your views. I also saw that you were reverted multiple times, so it's not only me thinking that your edits are, let's say, problematic. Artem.G (talk) 12:45, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Freoh: We can go around and around forever on your points, but not on what S Marshall ruled on 11 March 2023 at the close of the RfC:

By our rules, any changes to this article would need rough consensus before they could be made. There is no such consensus to be found here. Therefore these proposed changes should not be made, and if made, may freely be reverted.

Accordingly, please refrain from making any additions or deletions until you've proposed them here and found sufficient support from other editors. As for what the article currently says, it's not misleading for us, for Wikipedia, to report the prevailing view of mainstream sources. Allreet (talk) 05:55, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your edit included this sentence:

The opening words, "We the People", represented a new thought: the idea that the people and not the states were the source of the government's legitimacy.

What makes you say that this is the prevailing view of mainstream sources? I have given plenty of sources disputing this idea. I know that my RfC did not achieve a consensus, as people were concerned that my facts conflicted with your opinions, which is why I propose removing the opinionated content entirely.  — Freoh 14:11, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your comment, of course, is your opinion, not necessarily factual in terms of what occurred in the RfC.
As a constructive suggestion: Try gathering a range of sources, including those you've already noted plus a few from the article's Bibliography. Then write a paragraph as a proposal documenting the assertion (which is different from "fact") that voting at the grassroots level, whether for or against, was sparse. Avoid offering the observation that the Constitution was not representative of "We the People". Simply encapsulate what sources say about the voting and allow the information drawn from sources speak for itself.
If you don't do this or something like it, I will, because I believe the "3%" and related ideas should be documented. IOW, nobody is trying to suppress information. "Our concerns" are over how. Allreet (talk) 00:04, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In reply to your question regarding the prevailing view of mainstream sources, I invite you to peruse the bibliography of sources I've compiled. These materials, available on a research page I created, include more than 50 books and papers on the Constitution alone, as well as hundreds of related works on the founders, Articles of Confederation, and so forth. Of course, I haven't read everything here, but from what I have reviewed, I've found very little that concurs with the handful of sources you've offered. Allreet (talk) 15:19, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
References

References

  1. ^ a b Morton 2006, p. 225.
  2. ^ a b Beeman 2009, pp. 332, 347–348, 404.
  3. ^ a b McDonald, Forrest (2017). We the People: The Economic Origins of the Constitution. London. ISBN 978-1-351-29964-0. OCLC 1004369362.((cite book)): CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)
  4. ^ a b Simon, Larry G. (October 1985). "The Authority of the Framers of the Constitution: Can Originalist Interpretation Be Justified?". California Law Review. 73 (5): 1482. doi:10.2307/3480409. JSTOR 3480409.
  5. ^ Strauss, David A. (2012–2013). "We the People, They the People, and the Puzzle of Democratic Constitutionalism". Texas Law Review. 91: 1969.
  6. ^ a b Bowen 1966, p. 240.
  7. ^ a b Bernstein 1987, p. 183.
  8. ^ Congressional Research Service, U.S. Congress. "Historical Background on the Preamble". constitution.congress.gov. Constitution Annotated: Analysis and Interpretation of the U.S. Constitution. Retrieved January 16, 2023.
  9. ^ a b Warren 1928, p. 393.
  10. ^ Roznai, Yaniv (2019). Albert, Richard; Contiades, Xenophon; Fotiadou, Alkmene (eds.). The Law and Legitimacy of Imposed Constitutions. Abingdon, Oxon. p. 72. ISBN 978-1-351-03896-6. OCLC 1061148237.((cite book)): CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)
  11. ^ Congressional Research Service, U.S. Congress. "Historical Background on the Preamble". constitution.congress.gov. Constitution Annotated: Analysis and Interpretation of the U.S. Constitution. Retrieved January 16, 2023.
  12. ^ Lightfoot, Sheryl R. (2021). "Decolonizing Self-Determination: Haudenosaunee Passports and Negotiated Sovereignty". European Journal of International Relations. 27 (4): 978. doi:10.1177/13540661211024713. ISSN 1354-0661. S2CID 237710260.

Slavery: priority issue

As I posted earlier, IMO the article’s greatest weakness is its avoidance of the Convention’s #1 issue: Slavery.

Some ideas that need to be covered:

The above should be given priority. Regarding length, please see my next post (in progress, need time). Allreet (talk) 17:14, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see the need for that last bit of trivia, and I think that we should be careful about our use of ambiguous synecdoche when describing the Georgian and South Carolinian governments, which were clearly not representative of their state populations as a whole. Other than that, I agree.      — Freoh 01:13, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If nearly all sources assert that Georgia and South Carolina were opposed to limitations on slavery, we do not have to qualify our phrasing to indicate it was the government or leaders of the state who did so. I'll also add that this not at all akin to Synecdoche, which refers to slang, idioms, metaphors, and other informal elocutions. Allreet (talk) 06:48, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As long as it is clear from context that you are using Georgia and South Carolina to refer to their respective governments, I am fine with it. I can take a look at your text when you have a more concrete proposal.  — Freoh 13:24, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the omission of the word "slavery" from the Constitution is trivial; I've definitely read multiple sources that explain how that omission was a deliberate part of the careful compromise around slavery that was hammered out during drafting, though I don't have any sources handy right now. (I'm sure though that at least some of the sources we've already discussed on this page talk about the omission of the word "slavery".)
I think WP:TERTIARY provides good guidance: "Reliable tertiary sources can help provide broad summaries of topics that involve many primary and secondary sources and may help evaluate due weight, especially when primary or secondary sources contradict each other." I'd look to reliable tertiary sources to figure out how much due weight to give various aspects of the topic, like slavery, but also everything else (women, the Articles, economic interests, Locke, and so on). The ideal sources would be overviews of the Constitution (rather than any one aspect of it) that are of a similar length to a Wikipedia article--so less than book length, something like an entry in an encyclopedia or chapter in a book, published by an academic publisher in the last 10 years. We could look and see how much weight they give to aspects like slavery, and expand our article as needed. I'm sure we could find multiple such sources on WP:TWL, but I won't have a chance to look myself until later next week. Levivich (talk) 03:46, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. The omission of the word is significant. I'm in the midst of compiling notes on slavery for both the Constitution and Founding Fathers articles, and what comes across is that this was the number one issue at the 1787 convention, not large state-small state or economic interests. For sources, I have a Research Page set up with a separate section on Slavery. Feel free to peruse. There's a quick link to Slavery under the Sources: Revolutionary Era, 1765-1790 title . Allreet (talk) 03:45, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I will take a look when I get back to a desktop computer next week. (I just don't want anyone to think I'm drive-by complaining on an article talk page. I know the hard work is in the research and am also willing to help with that.) Levivich (talk) 04:37, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Most of my notes come from the "mainstream" histories in the Constitution section above the Slavery bibliography. The best introduction, perhaps, is a collection of essays titled Slavery and Its Consequences: The Constitution, Equality, and Race, which digs somewhat deeper into the subject than general sources. I believe the contributors are conservatives (it's published by American Enterprise Institute), but I didn't notice any biases. Allreet (talk) 15:18, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, as long as it is reasonably clear from context that Importation of ... Persons held the same legal weight as if they had said slave trade explicitly.  — Freoh 15:40, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Length: possible “cuts”

Some suggestions for reducing the article's size:

Both of the above could be reduced to their essence with links provided to the main articles indicated. I’d appreciate feedback to see if we can reach a consensus on the suggested changes.

Allreet (talk) 08:13, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Makes some sense, but we should give more than a nominal mention of these things here, as this is, after all, the Constitution of the United States article. A good amount of contextual overlap between articles is welcomed, which creates more of an interest and incentive for the reader to jump to any respective article, -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:24, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Or…long sections of marginal interest drive readers away. I know I haven't waded through the two sections in question, and it's a safe bet that's true of most of the article's million-plus annual readers. Allreet (talk) 22:47, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just a thought but the unratified amendments section could probably be reduced to just 2 paragraphs to help with length concerns. BogLogs (talk) 08:03, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would not be opposed to trimming these sections.      — Freoh 00:45, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

POV tag

@Randy Kryn, Allreet, and Freoh:

As is explained, at Template:POV section, removal of the POV tag can occur when:

  • 1. There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved.
  • 2. It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given.
  • 3. In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Yet on three different occasions in the last several days Freoh continues to re-add the POV tag. There has been no further discussion about, and no consensus for, the POV tag, while the discussion has been abandoned, while Freoh continues to create even more issues. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:23, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose POV tag — My reasoning: the article may need improvement, but is not misleading in any way. As noted above, all changes to the Constitution page require consensus. This would apply to the removal of tags and their assignment. Any edit warring on this must cease, and discussion, such as as this, should begin. If a sufficient number of editors weighs in one way or the other, we should follow their wishes. Thanks for posting. Allreet (talk) 22:09, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for the reasons outlined above. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:04, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion was in § The question is also a matter of where..., but I can continue it here. The main problem in § Preamble is that it includes a non-neutral opinion: the people and not the states were the source of the government's legitimacy. Some historians express this view, but others contradict it. Allreet has not given sufficient evidence to justify their unbalanced presentation, and Wikipedia is not the place to promote the U.S. government. The onus is on Allreet to get consensus for this content, which they have not achieved after months of discussion. Personally, I would be satisfied if we returned to this version. The ((POV section)) should remain until we can reach a compromise.  — Freoh 01:21, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@S Marshall: The recent RfC resulted in a consensus against Freoh's interpretation of the Preamble. In concluding the RfC, you stated:

By our rules, any changes to this article would need rough consensus before they could be made.

Despite your ruling, Freoh has applied a POV tag to the article's Preamble section while we were in the process of seeking a consensus as to whether such a tag is justified. Please advise us regarding how to proceed. Allreet (talk) 03:00, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Freoh — If you are claiming there is a neutrality issue, it is incumbent on you to substantiate it. Thus far all you've done is to claim some sources contradict others, without much explanation. You have not established any consensus, unlike Allreet, for the content in question. The ideal that the People are the source of authority of the government has been established, not only in the Constitution itself, but in numerous sources. You'll need to do more than to claim some sources say otherwise, but show how any authority is derived from anything else but The People. Since you were already turned down at the RfC you initiated, while you've have no consensus all along, I've removed your POV tag. We've lost count of how many times you've used POV tags, here and elsewhere, yet on my Talk page, you just complained about lack of good faith. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:29, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for pinging me. Closing an RfC doesn't make me Article Manager, and what follows is my personal view as an uninvolved editor.
I think that adding a tag is not a substantive change to the article, and that while a good faith dispute persists, it's reasonable to display a tag inviting readers to give their view. But this doesn't mean the tag should linger indefinitely; in my view it should be there only while good faith debate continues, which means only while editors are engaging with each other's point of view, responding to each other and introducing new ideas and suggestions. Stonewalling is not continuing a good faith debate.
If a consensus emerges, then the tag should be removed when any appropriate changes are made, and if it becomes clear that the debate has stalled without consensus, then the article remains as it is by default and the tag should still be removed. I hope that Freoh will be able to perceive when one of these things has happened and remove the tag himself. Incidentally, and I know that nobody has suggested this, it's just that long experience of Wikipedia is forcing me to type it out: Nobody should launch an RfC over a POV tag. A talk page consensus here will be sufficient.—S Marshall T/C 08:38, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the thoughtful reply. You've made things much clearer. I've been here a while myself but have not had to deal with such issues until now. So while experience can be a good teacher, it always helps to have some sound advice as well. Allreet (talk) 16:17, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per the comments above and Allreet's well researched "A brief survey of the available scholarship" below. Randy Kryn (talk) 08:44, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Hoppyh (talk) 22:30, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A brief survey of the available scholarship

Freoh continues to argue that what I've written in the Constitution's Preamble section is vague, misleading, and controversial. I beg to differ. The material I've added is explicit, is faithful to the sources I've cited, and is challenged by a some sources but too few and in such minor respects as to make little difference, most certainly nothing that would justify replacing it with text aimed at discrediting the Constitution and demeaning its framers.

Following is a representative sample of what leading historians have had to say about the Preamble and its meaning. I can provide more along the same lines if necessary, but I will not, given the breadth and weight of the available evidence, compromise on what we as editors for Wikipedia are obligated to do: provide readers with an accurate summation of what scholars have written on a subject. Can we say more? No doubt, but whatever that might be should also be treated relative to the available scholarship in terms of its prominence, that is, as asides and afterthoughts.

Now use the link in my opening sentence to read what I've written. Is my text vague? Have I misled? In what way are these thoughts controversial? Frankly, what would be controversial would be to assert, as Freoh has suggested, that the Constitution was not representative of the will of the people or that the men who wrote it were rich white people focused on furthering their own interests. Allreet (talk) 06:51, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Great research. Yes, if not by The People, then by whom? The States, which come back down to the people, who elected state representatives and delegates? Anyone can dig up a differing account of this matter, but clearly the overwhelming majority of primary reliable sources have well articulated the idea that ultimately governmental authority is answerable to The People. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:58, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
None of these sources establish an academic consensus. I am not arguing in favor of replacing it with text aimed at discrediting the Constitution and demeaning its framers, and I agree with you that it would be controversial ... to assert ... that the Constitution was not representative of the will of the people or that the men who wrote it were rich white people focused on furthering their own interests. Both the source of the government's legitimacy and the extent to which the Constitution reflected the will of the people as a whole are ultimately subjective questions, ones on which the opinions of professional historians differ. We should not present the view promoting the federal government unless we balance it with opposing viewpoints. Partially because of the length of this article, my current preference is to include neither, as in this version.  — Freoh 01:44, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure those are "leading historians". Only two of those (Morton and Jillson) are academic. I'm not sure "new thought" is supported by the sources... "new" compared to the Articles but not actually a new thought in the world or even in governments. I'm concerned the preamble section doesn't give enough of the critical point of view and thus doesn't meet NPOV. Levivich (talk) 13:09, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Levivich, did you actually research this: Only two of those (Morton and Jillson) are academic? Akhil Reed Amar teaches at Yale and is one of the top 20 experts on Constitutional law (over 10,000 opinions cited). Pauline Maier earned her doctorate at Harvard and taught at MIT for over 30 years. I could also cite Bernard Bailyn (Harvard), Gordon S. Wood (Brown), Richard Hofstadter (Columbia), and a host of other leading scholars. My chief concern is that the Preamble section doesn't go far enough. I intend to see that it does, and that means balancing what's said with other POVs. Allreet (talk) 16:25, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I meant the publishers not the authors. Also fwiw con law is not the same as history. Those aren't bad sources, but they're not the best, and I don't agree they're a representative sample of leading historians. Levivich (talk) 17:26, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The opening words, "We the People", represented a new thought: the idea that the people and not the states were the source of the government's legitimacy.[1][2] Coined by Gouverneur Morris of Pennsylvania, who chaired the convention's Committee of Style, the phrase is considered an improvement on the section's original draft which followed the word we with a list of the 13 states.[3][4] In addition, in place of the names of the states, Morris provided a summary of the Constitution's six goals, none of which were mentioned originally.[5][6]

References

References

  1. ^ Morton 2006, p. 225.
  2. ^ Beeman 2009, pp. 332, 347–348, 404.
  3. ^ Bowen 1966, p. 240.
  4. ^ Bernstein 1987, p. 183.
  5. ^ Congressional Research Service, U.S. Congress. "Historical Background on the Preamble". constitution.congress.gov. Constitution Annotated: Analysis and Interpretation of the U.S. Constitution. Retrieved January 16, 2023.
  6. ^ Warren 1928, p. 393.

To expand on my answer above, here is the paragraph right now; it could be improved, starting with the selection of sources to be summarized (see the article for the citations). Morton 2006 is published by an academic publisher; I can't find anything about the author; but it's a biographical dictionary of the people at the convention, which is a good source for our biography articles about those people, but this isn't a biography article, and that's not really a book about the Constitution; it's about the delegates. Richard Beeman was a historian, but Beeman 2009 is not an academic book, it's by a mainstream publisher for a mainstream audience, no footnotes, etc. It's fine as a source but there are better sources out there. Bowen 1966, Bernstein 1987, and Warren 1928, are too old. CRS's annoated constitution is also not the best source for this, as it's written by the US gov't, so there's an inherent bias. Recent historical scholarship will say a lot more about those words in the preamble than what we have in our article currently. Levivich (talk) 17:54, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"will say a lot more about those words in the preamble than what we have in our article currently." Coverage of the preamble and its contradictory interpretations should probably be covered in the article on the Preamble to the United States Constitution, which has seen few edits since 2021. Dimadick (talk) 18:09, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In detail, yes, in that article, which also is missing this aspect of it. Charles A. Beard's An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution of the United States was published over 100 years ago, and Forrest McDonald's rebuttal, aptly-named We The People: The Economic Origins of the Constitution, was published over 60 years ago. The idea that "the People" didn't mean all the people is not in any way new. Every year, people publish scholarly articles debating what "We the People" means. This debate shouldn't be omitted from our article about the Constitution. We are in an odd situation where the lead seems to say more about the impact of slavery on the Constitution than the body. This article should have an NPOV tag on it. Levivich (talk) 18:17, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The idea—that the people were the source of the government's sovereignty—was new in 1787, novel enough to Patrick Henry that he chose to attack the framers for having the chutzpah to invoke their name. As for working other POVs into the article, I have no objection, but Freoh would like to give this one more prominence than it deserves by inserting it into a short section on the Preamble, whereas elsewhere we'd be able to flesh out Beard v. Brown, as well as other points. For example, the idea to replace the states with the People was practical—what if two states failed to ratify? It was also strategic—the framers needed all the support they could get for ratification. However, all such things (for which I have ample sources) would be better addressed in the Preamble article, as Dimadick indicated.
And I agree wholeheartedly on what you said about the Constitution article's inattention to slavery. In fact, I started two separate talk sections above on this very point. I've spent a couple weeks researching the subject, but I'm disinclined to start improvements until we can get these disputes out of the way. I also believe POV tags are the least editors can do. People tend assign to them, and then do nothing, because usually it takes an immense amount of work to resolve the issues raised. Allreet (talk) 23:13, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Levivich, my "survey" was not referring to the section's current references. I was only addressing Freoh's assertion regarding the statement the people and not the states were the source of the government's legitimacy represented a non-neutral opinion. All the material I just quoted relates to this, not to other parts of the current text which for the most part are not in dispute. Read the quotes—they all relate to "We the People" as the foundation for the framers' proposed government. However, you've now raised other disputes so I'll respond:

  1. Yes, what I've written and cited in the text is representative of mainstream sources. It so happens that's also true of Wikipedia in general. For more, please refer to the Some Types of Sources section of WP:RS, which emphasizes this.
  2. Freoh's proposed edits represent neither the mainstream view nor a prevailing academic view. All of the changes he wants are critical of the Constitution and its framers, and those criticisms as I wrote above are too few and in such minor respects as to make little difference.
  3. An introductory overview does not need to address a subject's critical aspects unless controversy is related to the subject's notability. As I've said to Freoh numerous times, we usually raise these issues, asides and afterthoughts, in critical analysis sections, whereas Freoh was trying to interject them in defining sentences. Few if any major academic works and no mainstream sources I've seem begin their discussions of the Preamble on such notes.
  4. I understand the "age" of sources can be an issue, but that's not the case with the section's current sources. The works of these earlier writers (academic and mainstream) offer statements that have gone unrefuted by later scholarship, such as giving Morris credit for his authorship or the removal of the names of the states. It doesn't matter, then, that there are better sources out there.
  5. Ironically, all of the sources Freoh has cited are relying on Charles Beard's 1913 An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution of the United States. And only one of these, Forrest McDonald, defended Beard with his own analysis, and that was in 1962. The scholarship since then has all but buried Beard. Amar, for example, has flat out declared "Beard is bunk"—in a book published this year.
  6. As I was writing this you were publishing your comment above noting the need for citing Beard and McDonald. You even emphasized the ages of their writings—100 years and 60 years—as if age was a plus. So which is it?

In closing, I agree with Dimadick that what Freoh and now you believe should be added belongs elsewhere. Freoh agreed with this when I suggested that his proposed edits would be better placed under the section on ratification. However, as a condition he wanted my text on the Preamble either removed or replaced. I have no intention of agreeing to such a compromise. I do intend to expand the Preamble article, as Dimadick suggested, and improve the Constitution article's Preamble section. At this point, I don't know exactly what that means, though I am fairly certain I can muster community support for the changes I have in mind. Allreet (talk) 20:38, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Agree with Allreet. — It seems some of us are missing something a little obvious here. The opening statement in the Preamble reads:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare ...
The Common defence and the General welfare indeed. While ratification was in the hands of property owners, not all of whom were "rich", the idea of "Common" and "General" mean just that. To even think this somehow means to promote the defense and welfare of rich white guys only is absurd, and if that was what the Framers in question were all about they would never have been elected by their respective states in the first place, as there was strong sentiment against elitism of any sort among the colonies/states, having dealt with this sort of thing at the hand of the British before and during the Revolution. While we're mulling through the sources let's not lose sight of common sense. If we are going to cite any source that claims the Constitution did not promote the common defense and general welfare of all Americans it should explain how this is so in factual and no uncertain terms. i.e.No empty opinions and lengthy conjecture. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:13, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here is a good essay, written by Yale professor Akhil Amar, and Linda R. Monk, Constitutional scholar, explaining why the Constitution has endured for so long and has influenced other democracies around the world... -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:47, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, I'll read the paper. Frankly, most of what's been proposed would be laughed out of a high school American Government class. Freoh's latest assertion is that Wikipedia shouldn't be supporting the legitimacy of the government. Okay, we do have some obligation to acknowledge minority views, but this perspective—that the U.S. government has been bogus from the start—is as fringe as one could get. As for Amar, he's ranked 18th among the most cited legal scholars of all-time. The video I recommended earlier, on Amar's view on the true Father of the Constitution is both highly informative and entertaining. Allreet (talk) 22:30, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The main problem with the people is that it is vague. Your consolidated empire quote does not support the people, and your quote about who but the people suggests to me that the definition of the people is practically meaningless, effectively tautological puffery. The opposition to your opinions is not fringe. Howard Zinn is a highly-cited historian, and he contradicts your text.[1] I have already given you six tier 1 sources supporting the idea that less than 3% of the American population voted in favor of ratification.[2][3][4][5][6][7] Please listen when I tell you: the reliable sources opposing yours are neither minor nor few. You have not gotten consensus for your changes, and the ((POV section)) should remain until this discussion is resolved.  — Freoh 19:06, 28 March 2023 (UTC); added page numbers 12:58, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    In whose opinion is "We the People" vague, other than yours? You do need to get out a bit and read the wealth of sources that have a great deal to say about these three little words. For example, Amar's America's Constitution spends 50 pages on the Preamble, including about a dozen on "the People".
    Meanwhile, what else did Zinn write besides The People's History? Most scholars of note have a "Selected Works" section. Zinn's WP article and his NY Times obit mention little that had any impact other than his widely-discredited History.
    To be sure, I've heard you, loud and clear, as you've repeated these same arguments endlessly. Please listen carefully, then, to the warning that's just been issued, the RfC that rejected your proposed edits, and the "rough consensus" (4-0) against your tag. Allreet (talk) 13:12, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Zinn, Howard (2003). A People's History of the United States (New ed.). New York. p. 632. ISBN 0-06-052842-7. OCLC 1150994955. Madison feared a 'majority faction' and hoped the new Constitution would control it. He and his colleagues began the Preamble to the Constitution with the words 'We the people ...,' pretending that the new government stood for everyone, and hoping that this myth, accepted as fact, would ensure "domestic tranquility.((cite book)): CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)
  2. ^ McDonald, Forrest (2017). We the People: The Economic Origins of the Constitution. London. p. 14. ISBN 978-1-351-29964-0. OCLC 1004369362.((cite book)): CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)
  3. ^ Simon, Larry G. (October 1985). "The Authority of the Framers of the Constitution: Can Originalist Interpretation Be Justified?". California Law Review. 73 (5): 1482. doi:10.2307/3480409. JSTOR 3480409.
  4. ^ Roznai, Yaniv (2019). Albert, Richard; Contiades, Xenophon; Fotiadou, Alkmene (eds.). The Law and Legitimacy of Imposed Constitutions. Abingdon, Oxon. p. 72. ISBN 978-1-351-03896-6. OCLC 1061148237.((cite book)): CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)
  5. ^ Strauss, David A. (2012–2013). "We the People, They the People, and the Puzzle of Democratic Constitutionalism". Texas Law Review. 91: 1969.
  6. ^ Rotunda, Ronald D. (April 1988). "Original Intent, the View of the Framers, and the Role of the Ratifiers". Vanderbilt Law Review. 41 (3): 515.
  7. ^ Stein, Mark S. (2009–2010). "Originalism and Original Exclusions". Kentucky Law Journal. 98 (3): 398.
Howard Zinn, your first choice, was a member of Communist Party of the United States, was a committed Socialist, criticized Richard Morris for being a rich man and for his "exploitation of the masses", and described himself as an anarchist, so it's nothing amazing that that he would have opinions which you apparently cherry picked for purposes of this discussion. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:12, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I attended BU when Zinn taught Political Science there. His writings against the Vietnam War made him our hero. I also thought his People's History was ground-breaking but now understand how flawed it is. So the idea that he was a leading historian of the 20th century is simply not so. As for Charles Beard, he does qualify, though his 1913 work is no longer regarded as one of the century's most influential books (see last paragraph). Allreet (talk) 03:21, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps the thing to keep in mind is that Beard wrote over 100 years ago, and Zinn over 40 years ago. No historian's work lasts 40 years, or a century, without being debated, revised, discredited, revived, superseded, and so on. Zinn and Beard aren't unique in this; they're unique in their impact, they are dividing lines in historiography, but their works are too old to be cited in a Wikipedia article. Except in the articles about their works. :-) Levivich (talk) 03:36, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Good. Then generally we agree. I should note a couple other exceptions on using older works; for example, I see nothing wrong with citing anyone who concurs with the current consensus on a particular matter. But why use an older source if a more recent one will do? Some answers: if the older work sums up an issue more concisely, identifies a point others don't bother to mention but are likely to accept, or reflects long-standing agreement among scholars. Allreet (talk) 11:56, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing the same arguments

@Allreet, Randy Kryn, Thebiguglyalien, Redrose64, 127(point)0(point)0(point)1, Scapulus, DIYeditor, Fad Ariff, Display name 99, InvadingInvader, Aoidh, RadioactiveBoulevardier, and Levivich:

Freoh — None of your references have page numbers. You just stated your opinion, once again, and listed a bunch of sources with the assumption that they think The People is a "vague" idea. Once again saying that less than 3% of the American people did not vote for the Constitution is what's vague, and misleading, and ignores the idea that some 50% of the population were women who did not vote, with a huge portion being under 21 who also did not vote. If we are going to use numbers, they should be comprehensive and show how many delegates, who represent The People, voted for ratification, which had to be a majority for ratification to occur. Imo, you're trying to suggest that the Constitution was forced on 97% of the American people, which is total nonsense, and I believe you know this. We already have consensus as several editors have reverted your attempts to POV tag the section. We have discussed this at length in an RfC you initiated and which failed in the face of overwhelming consensus against it. You have already been warned about belaboring the discussion.and ignoring consensus. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:02, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
some 50% of the population were women who did not vote Yeah, that's a big part of the point, they weren't part of "we the people". Levivich (talk) 20:07, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Constitution was/is the law of the land and pertains to everyone, whether they voted or not. This is why we should make any reference to the voting in terms of the numbers of delegates who voted for or against ratification. Again, saying only 3% of the American people voted for the Constitution more than suggests that it was forced on 97% of the people. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:27, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Idk about the exact percentage, but the only people who voted for the Constitution were white male landowners, which I'm sure was less than 50% of the population. The rest, yes, had it "forced" upon them. Which doesn't mean they didn't support it, or they didn't support it over King George's monarchy, but they didn't vote for it, and they didn't enjoy all of its rights and privileges. As pretty much any mainstream modern history book makes this point when discussing the Constitution, so should our article. And indeed, it does, somewhat, in the lead, but the section on the Preamble would be improved by being expanded to mention the inequity, if not hypocrisy, of "We the People". Levivich (talk) 20:33, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The delegates who voted, represented the People, all of them. And of course they were white, as the nation was founded by white settlers. Any "hypocrisy" suggests that the constitution was forced, and this sort of POV needs to be kept out of the article. If there was any hypocrisy involved the People would not have stood for it. It's understood that some delegates opposed ratification -- most supported it. It's also understood that women had no say, as was a common theme around the world, so this isn't anything amazing for the period in question, and, Loyalists aside, they certainly didn't want to remain under the rule of the tyrannical King George III.. Again, we need to show the percentage of delegates who voted for and against. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:45, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
User:Gwillhickers and User:Levivich seem to make valid points. Complete citation data is the least one might expect. BusterD (talk) 21:01, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • John Mikhail, Carroll Professor of Jurisprudence at Georgetown University Law Center (2015), "The Constitution and the Philosophy of Language: Entailment, Implicature, and Implied Powers", Virginia Law Review [8] (PDF), footnotes omitted, emphasis and links mine:

    In the domain of historical scholarship, one of the watershed events occurred just over a century ago, when Charles Beard published An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution of the United States. In a nutshell, Beard argued that economic interest, not political theory, was the dominant factor that explained how the Constitution was drafted and ratified. Far from being theoretical visionaries, the Framers of the Constitution were more akin to self-interested businessmen. By means of such ingenious devices as the Contracts Clause, the Sweeping Clause, the Supremacy Clause, and above all, powerful courts, they feathered their own nests at the expense of ordinary citizens, who in turn were led to ratify the Constitution only under an avalanche of Federalist propaganda. Beard supported these and other provocative claims by pointing to evidence that other scholars had often ignored, such as the holdings of land, slaves, and, most importantly, public debt, which each of the Framers held at the time, and by relating these findings to particular features of the constitutional text and of the drafting and ratification history. The cumulative effect of these ideas on American political theory was profound. In the postwar era, a number of historians mounted detailed challenges to Beard's thesis, but the new paradigm he ushered in has largely endured. Since then, several generations of "neo-Beardian" scholars have continued to enhance our understanding of the economic and political factors that led to the formation and adoption of the Constitution.

In the footnotes, Mikhail gives about 10 examples of such works between 1937 and 2007 (including McDonald). None of this is new or controversial. Beard's view is the mainstream view and has been for 100 years, despite some authors challenging it. Levivich (talk) 21:28, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Much of this comes off a bit naive, and seems as something fostered by socialist political theory, and overlooks much. For example...

  • they feathered their own nests at the expense of ordinary citizens, who in turn were led to ratify the Constitution only under an avalanche of Federalist propaganda

How is it that the ordinary citizens were compromised if they were protected by the same laws as anyone else? To think that the people then, who were very politically aware, and strongly opposed to any form of elitism, esp after the Revolution, were simply fooled by "Federalist propaganda", more than suggests that the American populous was sort of naive and not very aware of the looming realities of that time. Sometimes "propaganda" can be the advocation of sound ideas, which no doubt won a lot of delegates over, and were chosen as such because they were widely considered the brightest men from their respective states

  • Beard's view is the mainstream view and has been for 100 years ...

That's actually an opinion which would demand many considerations of views held by 100's, perhaps 1000's of sources, so it's best to keep one sided claims out of the discussion and concentrate on facts. e.g. How many delegates voted for or against ratification. It's understood that at first the Constitution was met with much reservation, since many had assumed that the Constitutional Convention was simply going to improve on the inadequate Articles of Confederation, but slowly most were won over by the realization that a strong central government binding the states was necessary for the survival of the nation. Without national security, economic interests would always be in jeopardy. By necessity, any concern for economic interest would have to embrace the idea of national safety, based in sound political principles. which would be to the benefit of everyone.

  • Beard argued that economic interest, not political theory, was the dominant factor that explained how the Constitution was drafted and ratified.

This sounds a bit simplistic also, because to preserve economic interest by way of law, any such law would have to be rooted in political theory. With concern for economic interest, the livelihood of the people was safeguarded from taxation without representation and other forms of tyranny, and would allow them to engage in the free enterprise system with the same protections as anyone else. So while we're mulling through all the varied sources, we should never lose sight of these basic considerations. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:55, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to go with the Georgetown Law endowed professor over the Wikipedian on this one. Levivich (talk) 01:14, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, let's just ignore common sense. Above, according to user Rjensen, a credentialed historian, Historians agree that Brown's deeply researched study is much better than Beard's thinly-based speculation, and Allreet, Beard is passe. Even the Charles A. Beard article asserts, the consensus historian Richard Hofstadter concluded in 1968, "Today Beard's reputation stands like an imposing ruin in the landscape of American historiography. That Beard referred to the Founders as those who feathered their own nests at the expense of ordinary citizens, who in turn were led to ratify the Constitution only under an avalanche of Federalist propaganda more than tipped his hand and sort of puts Beard on the same shelf as Howard Zinn. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:50, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Beard and Zinn are two of the most prominent historians of the 20th century. Those two books -- Economic Interpretation and People's History -- are among the most influential books about American History written in the 20th century, like top 10, probably top 5. Levivich (talk) 03:53, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Prominent" no doubt among chronic critics of the Constitution and the free enterprise system, which flies in the face of socialist ideology, where a centralist government, with no representation, reigns over the people, and the ways and means of production and economy. Thanks Levivich. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:02, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Anytime? 😂 Levivich (talk) 04:04, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This was the time. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:07, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What history readers think of Zinn: excerpt from the article by JENNIFER SCHUESSLER "And the Worst Book of History Is …" in New York Times July 16, 2012 see online full text here quote: "The political direction of the country may be up for grabs until November, but the right has scored an interim victory — if that’s the word — in a weeklong contest to determine “the least credible history book in print” just concluded by the History News Network. After a week of voting by readers, David Barton’s “The Jefferson Lies” won with some 650 votes, narrowly edging the left-wing historian Howard Zinn’s “People’s History of the United States,” which received 641 votes. . . . But Mr. Zinn’s Marxist-inflected account of American history provoked the most impassioned debate in the site’s comments section, with some commenters dismissing it as “absolutely atrocious agit-prop” and others praising it as a flawed but necessary corrective to the overly heroic stories that prevail in many classrooms. David Kaiser, a professor of military history at the Naval War College, charged “A People’s History” — which has sold more than two million copies since its initial publication in 1980 — with damaging the country, “By convincing several generations of Americans that leadership does not matter and that all beneficial change comes from the bottom,” he wrote, “it has played a significant role in the destruction of American liberalism.” Others, however, said Mr. Zinn’s faults were dwarfed by those of the other finalists. “I don’t really enjoy defending Zinn, but the other four are clearly on another level of awful,” wrote another commenter. “Zinn is tendentious and strident and polemical and oversimplifies everything, the others are obviously all worse.” [etc] [end of excerpt from NY TIMES] Rjensen (talk) 05:12, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A culture reporter writing in the NYTimes arts blog... is what you're bringing to the table here? If you want NYT criticism of Zinn, at least pull from something respectable like the The New York Times Book Review [9] :-P Levivich (talk) 05:32, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I quoted a professional journalist in a major story in a leading newspaper--she is not giving her own opinions on Zinn--instead she is summarizing what hundreds of history readers told HNN in 2012 about Zinn's book. (Are you willing to tell us sources are you using????) Rjensen (talk) 05:43, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A poll on a website asking people to rate "the least credible history book in print" from among 5 choices selected by the website, History News Network. Zinn is a controversial historian, perhaps the most controversial historian of his day, and it's really easy to find criticisms of Zinn. One need look no further than our article Howard Zinn. But you insult me with this blog and web poll. Levivich (talk) 05:50, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Beard and Zinn are two of the most prominent historians of the 20th century.

and

Beard's view is the mainstream view and has been for 100 years.

Beard's analysis has been roundly refuted by a host of scholars over the past 75 years, beginning more or less in the 1950s up through the present. Zinn fares even worse. To quote Akhil Reed Amar of Yale, the views of both Beard and Zinn can be summed up with one word: bunk. Allreet (talk) 10:58, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A quote from Amar's most recent volume, The Words That Made Us:

Almost everything that Charles Beard and his modern-day debunking followers have said about the Constitution’s launch is either dead wrong or more wrong than right.

— Review, Los Angeles Review of Books, August 3, 2021 Allreet (talk) 11:16, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Still discussing if "We the People" means "We the People"? I think Gwillhickers points above about the wording "We the People...in Order to...provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare ..." closed the case on this a long time ago (in Wikipedia years). Of course the Founders wrote the Constitution and their other documents for everyone in the United States, including women. They just didn't give women a vote, but did leave a direct route within the Constitution to change the documents and thus obtain that vote, end slavery, prohibit alcohol, publish Lady Chatterley's Lover, and bring back alcohol. And, by the way, build a civilization which was able to reach the Moon within less than 200 years. "We the People" means all the people, this is well-sourced. As for who wrote the words, voted or didn't vote, that has nothing to do with the ongoing civilization-shaping effect of the words and subsequent laws and actions. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:27, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah and Amar's view is not the mainstream view. Let's quote that book review of Amar's latest book fully:
As his postscript, acknowledgments, and notes to his new book, The Words That Made Us, record, Amar has read virtually every major author — and there are many leading authors on the Constitution — and is a man of strong views, "a product of law school culture […] and here is my bottom line: Almost everything that Charles Beard and his modern-day debunking followers have said about the Constitution’s launch is either dead wrong or more wrong than right." Beard should not feel too bad. Throughout The Words That Made Us, Amar criticizes Adams, Madison, Jefferson, Calhoun, and Jackson, among other leading politicians, and stakes out a distinctive position among the Constitution's many interpreters. This alone justifies the book.
Italics in the original, bold is mine. Amar's book is putting forth a new theory, a distinctive position among the Consitution's many interpreters. Not restating the mainstream view.
And what's the review say about the people?
Amar plans to more systematically address slavery, women’s rights, and the rights of Native in subsequent volumes of his potential trilogy. So let's wait until Amar finishes the trilogy before we cite his latest work, and let's not pretend Amar's latest distinctive theories are the mainstream view when Amar's recent book argues to change the mainstream view. Levivich (talk) 13:42, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What Amar has to say about his own book, The Words That Made Us. All of these quotes are from the postscript (it's an ebook, so no page numbers):

The claims made in this book may well elicit sharp responses and rejoinders from other scholars. I hope so! As I shall explain below, the preceding chapters tell a fresh story of America—a story that, in ways both large and small, breaks with reigning academic orthodoxies ... Just as I seek to correct my predecessors, mentors, and role models, so I expect that scholars of the next generation will push back against some of what I say here. In other words, dear reader, the book that you have just read is nothing if not ambitious ... a book that seeks to take its place alongside, and indeed to synthesize and (dare I say it?) succeed, [Bancroft 1882], Charles Beard’s An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution of the United States (1913), [McLaughlin 1935, Wood 1969, Wood 2006].

He is explicit that his book presents new theories that break with "reigning academic orthodoxies". So no, his new book is not the mainstream view, it's arguing against the mainstream view. He spends an entire page in the postscript arguing against "neo-Beardian" views (as well as the views of Wood, Maier, and others). He also concedes that The truth on all this did not generally come to light until 2005, in the opening pages and endnotes of my book, America’s Constitution: A Biography. So Amar cites himself as debunking Beard.
Here is Stanford Law endowed professor Gregory Ablavsky reviewing Amar's The Words That Made Us. From the abstract:

This essay reviews Akhil Amar's recent constitutional history of the early United States, The Words That Made Us. In this volume, Amar seeks to offer a "fresh story of America" that provides a "usable past." I argue that the book fails on both fronts. On the contrary, much of what Amar peddles is very old, ignoring generations’ worth of scholarship while parroting a centuries-old nationalist constitutional hagiography. In particular, he believes that constitutional history must be, at core, a referendum on the handful of powerful men dubbed the Founders. His effort to defend them and the Constitution from critics paints him into difficult corners, including endorsing some dubious exculpatory narratives around the exclusion of women, Black people, and Native nations in early America.

The actual review (free PDF if you click the link above) is even harsher. It begins on page 1:

Akhil Amar’s doorstop of a constitutional history, The Words That Made Us, appeared this past spring to both scholarly and popular acclaim. Amar’s “love letter to America,” the first of a projected three volumes, offers a sweeping narrative of the creation of the United States and the U.S. Constitution from the beginning of the American Revolution through the Jacksonian era. At a moment when Americans are sharply divided over how to narrate the nation’s history, Amar seeks to offer a “common core” by returning to “constitutional basics.” The book hopes to meet the needs of a stormy present by providing the “usable past” that historians have been unable to give us.

It fails. Likely few books could restore a common historical narrative amidst the current moment’s fractiousness. But Amar’s account provides a surprisingly unusable past, in large part because he misreads the challenge ... . As a result, Amar’s defense of the Constitution’s legitimacy by repackaging some very old, shopworn arguments and evidence will do little to settle our ongoing fights over the past.

On page 21:

Saying something new, especially about the Constitution, is hard. Amar explicitly hopes that his volume will stand alongside the canonical reinterpretations of the Constitution by scholars like Charles Beard and Gordon Wood. But their volumes became classics because they offered novel understandings of the Constitution based on an incisive understanding of the then-current literature. Beard, for instance, argued for the primacy of the drafters’ economic interests in shaping the Constitution, while Wood highlighted the significance of the state legislative threat in prompting the constitution’s creation. Regardless whether they were right (Amar thinks they weren’t), they made it impossible to consider constitutional history without grappling with their interpretation.

I'm going to emphasize that last line: impossible to consider constitutional history without grappling with their interpretation. This is why our article on the US Constitution cannot avoid neo-Beardianism: it's impossible to consider the history of the constitution without grappling with neo-Beardianism.
Beard's views have been debated for 100 years, and are still debated today, and Amar is probably one of the most vocal critics of Beard. There are plenty of positive reviews of Amar's 2021 book, as Ablavsky acknowledges in the quote above, but it's not really accurate to present Amar's novel 2021 thesis as if it was the mainstream view, particularly since his book is only a couple of years old, probably too recent to shift the dominant paradigm. Levivich (talk) 16:51, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: Beard's interpretation is not regarded as mainstream. See the sources and quotes below (emphasis mine):

Although Beard might've been very influential, but very few continue to support him and they contradict the historical consensus, as noted above. Antiok 1pie (talk) 18:35, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for posting these sources.
Couvares et al. are the editors, not the authors, of what you're quoting. The chapter, "The Constitution: Conflict or Consensus", was written by Gordon S. Wood and John Howe. It's "Wood 2000".
Wood 2000, p. 180:

Beard's book was perhaps the most influential work in American history of all time ... Although adversaries sprang up quickly, Beard remained convincing. Textbooks in history and poltical science repeated Beard's thesis verbatim. Even today's constitutional scholars content with Beard's ghost. Almost all interpretations of the Constitution written since Beard's book have been forced into a pro- or anti-Beard position. Until World War II Beard, though often constested, reigned.

Since World War II, however, historians have launched strong challenges to Beard's interpretation ...

The next nine pages describe the challenges to Beard's interpretation during the 20th century.
Page 189:

By the end of the 1980s, most scholars found the debate over economic interests and the Constitution along Beardian lines unrewarding ...

Six more pages of post-Cold War historiography. This book was published in 2000, so it doesn't tell us anything about 21st-century historiography. But here is how Wood concluded:
Page 193:

History students continue to come to grips with the problem of evaluating the Constitution and the developments that led to its writing and ratification ... Was the Constitution, as Beard and some neo-Progressive historians argued, an undemocratic document--the work of a political and propertied minority who drafted it as an instrument to suit their own purposes? Were the Antifederalists tradition-minded classical republicans or enterprising protoliberals who glimpsed the future of America as Wood suggested? Only by raising such questions can the student decide whether the Constitution was a document that reflected conflict or consensus.

I'll note at this point that Akhil Reed Amar, in the postscript of his 2021 book The Words That Made Us (cited/discussed/quoted above), posits himself as a "third way" in contrast to Charled Beard and Gordon Wood. From the postscript to his book, italics in the original:

...My view, by contrast, is simple and straightforward: The Constitution of 1787 was a direct, logical, and proportionate response to the basic failures of the Articles. Period.

Indeed, that is one of my key claims in Chapter Five. In order to explain the emergence of the United States Constitution, we need not posit self-interested moneymen aiming to enrich themselves, à la Charles Beard. Nor was the Constitution a Madisonian project centrally addressed to solving the perceived internal governance flaws of individual state constitutions, as Gordon Wood has cleverly—too cleverly—argued in a truly brilliant lifetime body of work.

Feldman 2014 appears to be self-published.
Fogo 1996 appears to be a graduate student thesis.
James T. Kloppenberg's 2004 article saying Beard’s specific claims concerning the reasons for replacing the Articles of Confederation have been largely discredited isn't the same as saying Beard's entire thesis has been largely discredited. The rest of that quote, on page 206:

Beard claimed that the U.S. Constitution reflects the interests and aspirations of the wealthy individuals who wrote it, not the high ideals and noble aspirations usually read into it by Americans. Beard’s specific claims concerning the reasons for replacing the Articles of Confederation have been largely discredited, because further research has shown that the economic divisions between Federalists and Antifederalists--and the reasons for their disagreements--were considerably more complicated than Beard allowed. But in its day, both as a signal announcing the new historians’ challenge to the nation’s sacred cows and as an illustration of the ways in which economic analysis could illuminate historical interpretation, Beard’s argument was immensely important. He brought to the musty study of constitutional history a new method of historical analysis and a self-consciously pragmatist sensibility. He believed that historical scholarship should illuminate the past in order to fuel democratic reformist politics in the present.

At p. 207, he describes Beard's interpretation as "revisited" and "revised":

Beard was a long way from our own postmodernist moment, and he remained committed to the proposition that historical inquiry, although conceived with an eye to its contemporary significance, remains an empirical project and must be grounded in careful archival research. But he insisted that such claims must be revisited by each generation--as indeed historians have revisited--and revised--his own economic interpretation of the Constitution.

Kloppenberg presents a more nuanced explanation of neo-Beardianism as "Beyond Beard" at pp. 214-15:

Outside the field of intellectual history, interest in pragmatism has been less prominent among American historians recently than it was in the middle of the twentieth century. When an explicitly New Left historiography and a more multifaceted new social history both emerged in the late 1960s and 1970s, dissatisfaction with the so-called consensus history of the 1950s did prompt renewed and often respectful attention to the ‘‘new history’’ of the progressive and interwar eras. But most historians aimed to move ‘‘Beyond Beard,’’ to use the title of Staughton Lynd’s chapter in the most widely read manifesto of New Left historical writing, Towards a New Past.

Beard's influence is mentioned at p. 216:

Once American historians, following Robinson, the Beards, Du Bois, and Dewey, discovered worlds of experience that had been lost or ignored, they endeavored to understand the experience of those who inhabited those worlds, people formerly unknown or invisible to historians. Achieving that understanding requires commitments to perspectivalism, fallibilism, and instrumentalism, sensibilities long associated with pragmatism.

And, finally, he gives a middle-of-the-road view similar to Wood 2000, at p. 219:

In practice, however, most historians have adhered neither to the strict objectivist credo nor to the wilder versions of relativism incorrectly attributed to Beard and Becker by their critics. Working historians instead have occupied a middle ground discovered first by James and Dewey, surveyed with great precision and clarity by Bernstein and Hilary Putnam, and analyzed historically by Haskell and Hollinger.

Like Wood 2000, Kloppenberg 2004 was written 20 years ago and can't tell us much about 21st-century historiography, e.g., what the modern view is.
Jon K. Lauck is an adjunct professor at the University of South Dakota, writing a book review of David S. Brown's 2009 book. The book review is published in The Annals of Iowa. It's true, he says Beard's interpretation has been "convincingy debunked". He takes Hofstader's side in it... but the other historians quoted above say something rather different: that Hofstader challenged Beard's interpretation, but not that he "debunked" them. Lauck takes the anti-Beard position. But I don't see Lauck as really being in the same league as the other people we're quoting (e.g. Wood, Amar, Mikhail, Ablavsky).
We have legal history scholars, in the past 10 years, taking more of a pro-Beard position, or at least saying Beard endures: Stanford prof Ablavsky 2022 and Georgetown prof Mikhail 2015. We also have Yale prof Amar 2021 taking an anti-Beardian position. (All three quoted in this thread.)
This literature review we're doing has persuaded me that I may have overstated things when claiming there is one mainstream view. "Neo-Beardianism" may be one of several, but I'd like to see more recent scholarship that addresses this, from the past 10 years, like Mikhail 2015, Amar 2021, adn Ablavsky 2022. Levivich (talk) 19:59, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Levivich: — Your last comment here is more than fair. It seems, however, that we already have a wide selection of the latest scholarship, mostly from the 21st century. We should be mindful about holding up the year of publication as the primary way of attributing credit to a given source, as there are many older sources that are just as credible, sometimes more so, than the latest scholarship. When it comes to science related topics of course the latest sources are desirable because they often introduce new break throughs and such, but where it concerns history, very often a source close to the time in question can be very informative, esp in terms of public sentiment towards people and events, shedding additional light on a subject . Every now and then someone will discover a new document, letter or diary, yet at this late date I've yet to see anything that has gone so far as to reinvent the historical wheel in terms of established facts. Often times the latest scholarship only offers new opinion, not new facts. At one time Beard and Zinn were considered among the "latest scholarship", but look where they are today. Iow, the "latest" is no guarantee that a source is all the way around credible, and will remain so. We should consider sources on a per source basis, with only some regard for its date of publication. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:23, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:AGE MATTERS : — "With regard to historical events, older reports (closer to the event, but not too close such that they are prone to the errors of breaking news) tend to have the most detail, and are less likely to have errors introduced by repeated copying and summarizing.
Sources of any age may be prone to Recentism, and this needs to be balanced out by careful editing." (emphasis added) -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:09, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A historiography section?

It seems if some editors want to include major coverage of the historiography involving the Constitution. We can mention briefly the views of some historians but to elevate anyone to iconic status e.g. "Beardianism" would be POVish and invoke due weight issues. (btw, the proper term would be Beardian) We can include a statement regarding Beard's views, along with other prominent historians, but nothing more, as the Constitution article should, and does, lend itself primarily to the established facts, e.g.who signed, date of ratification, etc. Beard has been debated much because his opinion reeks with lop-sided anti-constitutional bias and has been widely refuted by a good number of more objective historians such as Brown. He is no longer in the running among objective historians. e.g. This statement sort of puts beard in his proper perspective. they feathered their own nests at the expense of ordinary citizens, who in turn were led to ratify the Constitution only under an avalanche of Federalist propaganda One would have to ask, what part of the Constitution would allow the founders to "feather their nests" at the expense of the "ordinary citizen"? Answer: No part. — In any case, showcasing someone like Beard, widely refuted, would be giving more weight and attention than this individual deserves.
Levivich, re: this statement: Beard's views have been debated for 100 years The more accurate statement would be that Beard's views have been criticized and refuted for 100 years.
Here are yet even more views from historians about Beard's grandstanding.
  • Historian Charles A. Beard, in ... in 1913 asserted, incorrectly, that Benjamin Franklin “at the time of the Convention was so advanced in years as to be of little real weight in the formation of the Constitution.", Morton, 2006, p. 106
  • [Beard's 1913 work] ... has been largely refuted by subsequent scholarship. --Morton, 2006, p. 355
  • Robert Brown asserts that many of Beard’s conclusions were based on faulty or non-existent sources. This is a plausible indictment of the controversial Beard interpretation. -- Morton, 2006, p. 335
  • ... though Beard elsewhere lavished attention on the issue of property qualifications for representatives, he omitted all mention of the topic in analyzing the ratification process, focusing instead only on property qualifications for voters. i.e.many states waived the property ownership qualification for the ratification delegates. Amar, 2006, p. 505
  • Macmillan, 1913, Beard's argument that the framing of the Constitution was engineered by a group of men whose assets were disproportionately invested in "personalty" — especially public securities and commercial pursuits — has been widely attacked and, for the most part, proven to be erroneous., Beeman, 2009, p. 458
Saying anything more than a brief statement about Beard, who has been widely refuted by numerous scholars, would be giving this character more credit than is due, regardless of the controversies that exposed him. It's a bit troubling that some editors have to reach for sources like Beard and Zinn to make any point. --. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:33, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • He is explicit that his book presents new theories that break with "reigning academic orthodoxies". -- Levivich
Unfortunately it's the squeaky wheel that gets most of the grease. The "reigning academic orthodoxies" remain so because they concentrate on fact, are objective, widely substantiated, and have stood the test of time. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:33, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I believe Gwillhickers is correct on most counts. Two clarifications (for Levivich):
  • The quote I provided was only intended to debunk Beard, not elevate Amar, though for certain he's a member of a long line of scholars whose works have contributed to the present day view of the Constitution.
  • Stephen Feldman's essay was not self-published. It appeared in Vol. 29, No. 3, of the journal Constitutional Commentary, which is replete with thoughts on Beard.
And finally, can we please get back to improving the article (enough for now on Historiography)? I've proposed adding more on slavery in two sections above. Anyone else have a suggestion? Allreet (talk) 02:48, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for straightening me out about Feldman 2014; I was going off the "suggested citation" in the original link and didn't notice the header on the PDF. That Beard centennial issue in ConComm has an excellent variety of views on Beard. Levivich (talk) 03:14, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
" include major coverage of the historiography involving the Constitution" Are there enough sources for a spin-off article concerning this historiography? Dimadick (talk) 06:14, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes--LOTS of good material for a historiography section. 1) Start by looking at Landis, Mark. "Recent Scholarship on the Origins of the US Constitution: A Guide for Teachers of American History." (1990). online at this link; (2) Then for more advanced approaches look at Onuf, Peter S. "Reflections on the Founding: Constitutional Historiography in Bicentennial Perspective." William and Mary Quarterly (1989): 341-375. online for free at this link. (3) You can followup by browsing Gibson, Alan. Interpreting the Founding: Guide to the Enduring Debates over the Origins and Foundations of the American Republic (Revised and Expanded. University Press of Kansas, 2010) online book at google Rjensen (talk) 07:19, 31 March 2023 (UTC).[reply]
I've been sharing this with other editors, a roundup of books and papers on the Revolutionary Era that I maintain as a personal Research Page. Many if not most of these link to the works on the Internet Archive and JSTOR. Also, nearly all of the book sources are set up as full cites, so that should save others time as well. Rjensen, I intend use the links you've just provided as sources for finding additional sources. Thanks. Allreet (talk) 15:57, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The article already includes an extensive Bibliography and a Further reading section, not to mention a References section containing many reliable sources. It would seem that also including a Historiography section might be a bit redundant on that note. We can create a Bibliography of the United States Constitution (  Done ) and add it with a Further information link at the top of the Bibliography here, as well as to other appropriate articles. If a Historiography section is added perhaps it would be best to simply give a general overview of the many sources that have emerged since Ratification, noting that this subject has received praise, neutral objectivity, and criticism by many historians over the years. Gwillhickers (talk) 19:43, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Good work. Allreet (talk) 09:23, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Allreet, Rjensen, and Randy Kryn: — Searching for sources for the new Bibliography has been something of an adventure. Along with the various publications a good number of letters between Madison and Jefferson have also been included in the Primary sources and James Madison sections. Through correspondence Madison kept Jefferson, who was in Paris prior to and during the ratification, informed of the developments, while Jefferson lent his advice. Oddly, at least to myself, there doesn't seem to be much of any publications about the Constitution in the late and early 18th and 19th centuries respectively. The earliest publication found thus far is from Robert Yates (1738-1801), whose work about the proceedings of the Constitutional Convention wasn't published until 1821.Subsequently, the 19th century publications section contains only three sources (now contains five). I'm still mulling through the various bibliographies of the various sources hoping to find other publications for the said time period, but so far nothing has surfaced. Any help along this line would be appreciated. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:00, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Founders Online provides access to the correspondence of Washington, Franklin, Adams, Jefferson, Hamilton, Madison, and Jay. Suggestion: rather than try to duplicate this in some form, it may be better to start a Web Resources section and list Founders Online with a description.
Meanwhile, I'll search for other sources to add to the 19th, 20th and 21st century listings. Allreet (talk) 00:33, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Good work on the new page. Articles present in the Journal of the American Revolution and American Heritage magazine would be good sources for readers interested in the period, and may already be on the page. To give credit to Allreet, he authored the very good and topic notable Wikipedia page Founders Online. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:30, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification about disagreement and vagueness

I would like to clarify that I am not saying that everything Beard wrote is accurate or that his perspective is the mainstream. My point is that reliable sources disagree about whether the people and not the states were the source of the government's legitimacy and that there is no one scholarly consensus on this topic. To answer Allreet's earlier question about the vagueness of the people, I will quote Judith Butler:[1]

Of course, it is never really the case that all of the possible people who are represented by "the people" show up to claim that they are the people! So "we, the people" always has its constitutive outside, as we know. It is thus surely not the fact that the "we" fairly and fully represents all the people; it cannot, even though it can strive for more inclusive aims. Indeed, those who assemble as the "we" who are "the people" are not representing the people but providing the legitimating ground for those who do come to represent the people through elections. The people who are the "we" do something other than represent themselves; they constitute themselves as the people, and this act of self-making or self-constitution is not the same as any form of representation. ... The phrase does not tell us who the people are, but it marks the form of self-constitution in which that debate over who they are and should be begins to take place.

Given the scholarly disagreement and vague terminology, I still do not think that this article should prioritize a nationalist perspective.  — Freoh 12:01, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The disagreement you mention is between a tiny minority of sources and a distinct majority. The former may be of sufficient number and reliability to have their views addressed, but not as you wish, that is, by giving them the same weight as that of the the many sources that hold otherwise. It so happens there is a scholarly consensus on this topic, on whether the people and not the states were the source of the government's legitimacy, and it's embodied in what the framer's wrote and what they did. As for our role as editors, we're here to thoroughly research subjects and then report what we've found as accurately as possible. In short, we don't "prioritize" perspectives, our sources do. Allreet (talk) 19:56, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Allreet .— Since the state representatives represent the wishes of the People in their respective states, the idea of People v State seems rather moot, and serves only to keep the controversy alive and well in this article. We've had this discussion before, and the contender in question has since been formally warned about Gaslighting and knowing when to drop the stick and abide by consensus, not only among editors, but in regard to the sources. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:12, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This has gone back and forth over and over with no conclusion. I've looked over the discussion briefly, can you sum up the process being used to weigh consensus and balance dissenting opinions? Is it in any way quantifiable? Number of citations on google scholar? —DIYeditor (talk) 08:30, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure if you saw these questions, Allreet. I think looking at Google scholar is pretty standard in this kind of discussion. Maybe we can make a table of how many publications and citations each of the people being used as sources have? —DIYeditor (talk) 20:16, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent suggestion. I've seen one example of Google Scholar used by another editor and was impressed. While I have no idea how to it works, I will look into it. Meanwhile, I've reviewed enough sources in the Bibliography of the United States Constitution to state with confidence that I can support the disputed assertion in the Preamble section—The opening words, "We the People", represented a new thought: the idea that the people and not the states were the source of the government's legitimacy—with at least 25 citations. I've just added four cites to the existing two and believe that should suffice for now. As for citations to the contrary, Howard Zinn's People's History is touted as "the most prominent and direct contradiction". That's probably true, because I haven't come across any sources that come close to Zinn's low regard for the founders and the Constitution they wrote. Allreet (talk) 02:19, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Freoh, do you have a current proposed revision to the article? —DIYeditor (talk) 08:37, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Allreet has not gained consensus for their paragraph about how the people and not the states were the source of the government's legitimacy, and I would like this paragraph to be removed [10]. To clarify, there are two reasons for this change:
  • There is no academic consensus about the validity of this propaganda. Many reliable sources support this notion, but many others push back against it. Howard Zinn is the most prominent and direct contradiction,[2] but I have provided six additional sources estimating that less than 3% of the American population voted in favor of ratification,[3][4][5][6][7][8] and I have seen no sources that give different estimates.
  • Allreet's wording used is especially vague and uninformative. The Judith Butler quote is not directly connected to the Constitution, but it shows that the people is an ambiguous phrase. Is it the entire American population? Just the white men? The framers? The delegates who voted in favor? The voters who elected these delegates? Even if this information deserved due weight, it would need to be presented in a clearer way.
I have not seen anything that contradicts these two points, just repeated (unsourced) assertions that my ideas are fringe.  — Freoh 14:54, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Butler, Judith (2016). "'We, the People': Thoughts on Freedom of Assembly". What Is a People?. New York. pp. 51–54. ISBN 978-0-231-54171-8. OCLC 948779989.((cite book)): CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)
  2. ^ Zinn, Howard (2003). A People's History of the United States (New ed.). New York. p. 632. ISBN 0-06-052842-7. OCLC 1150994955. Madison feared a 'majority faction' and hoped the new Constitution would control it. He and his colleagues began the Preamble to the Constitution with the words 'We the people ...,' pretending that the new government stood for everyone, and hoping that this myth, accepted as fact, would ensure "domestic tranquility.((cite book)): CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)
  3. ^ McDonald, Forrest (2017). We the People: The Economic Origins of the Constitution. London. p. 14. ISBN 978-1-351-29964-0. OCLC 1004369362.((cite book)): CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)
  4. ^ Simon, Larry G. (October 1985). "The Authority of the Framers of the Constitution: Can Originalist Interpretation Be Justified?". California Law Review. 73 (5): 1482. doi:10.2307/3480409. JSTOR 3480409.
  5. ^ Roznai, Yaniv (2019). Albert, Richard; Contiades, Xenophon; Fotiadou, Alkmene (eds.). The Law and Legitimacy of Imposed Constitutions. Abingdon, Oxon. p. 72. ISBN 978-1-351-03896-6. OCLC 1061148237.((cite book)): CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)
  6. ^ Strauss, David A. (2012–2013). "We the People, They the People, and the Puzzle of Democratic Constitutionalism". Texas Law Review. 91: 1969.
  7. ^ Rotunda, Ronald D. (April 1988). "Original Intent, the View of the Framers, and the Role of the Ratifiers". Vanderbilt Law Review. 41 (3): 515.
  8. ^ Stein, Mark S. (2009–2010). "Originalism and Original Exclusions". Kentucky Law Journal. 98 (3): 398.
I am terribly late to this discussion, and there is a lot that I could say, but I will ask this: why are we opposed to including this here? Particularly, it seems like the "People of the United States" section would be most fitting. This would preserve the current text and provide the opportunity to relay more sources and discourse on the subject without extending the section too much. If there is no opposition, a mention on vagueness of the term could be mentioned in the section, but I don't think it should be too much more than that, and the link could redirect to that section. Maxx-♥ talk and coffee ☕ 19:45, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sources aren't criticizing the Preamble or the phrase the People as being vague. The term is Freoh's, but it's not the issue since it's a given that the Preamble is a generalized statement. The issue is the fringe view of one source, Howard Zinn's A People's History of the United States, about the illegitimacy of the Constitution. This view has been adopted by Freoh, who borrowed from Zinn in raising the following questions:

Should we specify that "the People" were a small number of powerful white men, that the 'liberties' did not extend to enslaved Africans, and that "protections" do not apply to colonized subjects?

This statement was part of a month-long RfC that Freoh initiated. He lost by a wide margin, and now he's back on essentially the same band wagon dressed in slightly different clothes. So, yes, you did tune in a bit late. P.S. The other sources Freoh cited are focused on the Constitution's ratification, not the Preamble. Hence, as he admitted, he has just one direct source. Allreet (talk) 20:23, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Gosh, this discussion seems all over the place. Initially, I was somewhat confused, as you have mentioned the RfC. Still, no edits regarding the former topic—that is, the People—in the article I linked. The old RfC also mentioned the ratification, and on that point I would agree with you that this seems like the same argument. The People, as per the article I linked, asserts it to be taken as citizens. In that, I would still argue that Preamble to the United States Constitution is still the most appropriate place for almost all of what has been discussed thus far.
Thank you. I hope this can come to some kind of resolution soon. Both this talk and the actual article itself are a little on the long side. Maxx-♥ talk and coffee ☕ 20:31, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Maxxhiato, I agree that both the article and this talk page have gotten quite long and unwieldy. To be clear, I am not arguing for adding this material to this article, but rather for deleting Allreet's paragraph about the people. I never admitted that I have just one direct source, and there are others that say the same thing.[1] Allreet, I advise you once again to drop the battleground mentality language. Nobody lost the RfC; it resulted in no consensus. Maxxhiato, I would support moving this content out of this article and into the Preamble to the United States Constitution article.  — Freoh 19:57, 13 April 2023 (UTC); edited 20:35, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody lost the RfC; it resulted in no consensus.
Nothing could be further from the truth. On the initial question, voting was as follows, with 25 editors participating:
  • 18 Opposed
  • 3 Support in Principle But Not as Worded
  • 3 Support
  • 1 Neutral
Clearly, Freoh is mis-reading what the reviewing editor, S Marshall, wrote at the RfC's conclusion:

By our rules, any changes to this article would need rough consensus before they could be made. There is no such consensus to be found here. Therefore these proposed changes should not be made, and if made, may freely be reverted.

Yes, there was no consensus...in support of Freoh's proposed wording, not with the community voting 21-3-1 against it. Allreet (talk) 22:53, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Freoh, I would appreciate your refraining from personal attacks such as describing me of having a battleground mentality. I have been responding to everything you've said, both civilly and in good faith. I will agree with one thing: this conversation is way out of hand, a return to what the recent ANI addressed. With that, I plan to give it all at least a two weeks' rest. Allreet (talk) 23:16, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've (already) listed this discussion for closure. Perhaps an uninvolved party will look it over and do so. —DIYeditor (talk) 23:36, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry that my comment came across as a personal attack, and I have edited the comment to make it clearer that I was referring to your conduct rather than your personal attributes. Polling is not a substitute for discussion, and you should not treat the !vote against my earlier proposal as consensus in favor of your proposed text. If you cannot demonstrate an academic consensus in favor of your interpretation, then I will remove it from this article.  — Freoh 20:35, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Everything I've written is supported by multiple sources, all highly reliable. However, in keeping with the RfC's finding and its reference to our rules, feel free to ask other editors for feedback on what's currently published.
BTW, your edit above is no improvement. To say my conduct is at issue rather than my mentality is equally personal. Similarly, I don't appreciate your accusation about the RfC. I never said or implied it favored "my" text. Allreet (talk) 07:52, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
While I could not find much on Morris Morton or Beeman as authorities, it would be a virtually untenable position to aver that Akhil Reed Amar, Calvin Jillson, Pauline Maier, or Mortimer Jerome Adler are unworthy of inclusion, despite the lack of WP:RS/AC. However, this does assert that individual opinions must be cited if no clear academic consensus is reliably sourced; their inclusion on the subject would be entirely unproblematic. There has been no clear demonstration of how these scholars have a view that has the intent to mislead or push a particular biased narrative, and while "propaganda" is a term used here to describe certain sources, Zinn's work was described as such by Michael Kazin—another academic.
This is not to say, however, that Zinn should not be included in any such discussion or that his work is insignificant—or even really propaganda, for that matter—as this is merely the writing of one academic (that I could find in relation to the three citations on his page). Since there is no WP:RS/AC on any of these scholars being propaganda, it being their individual opinions should be made evident.
However, one element that I believe we have all greatly overlooked is the legal cases cited regarding this matter, and most of this can be read in the article Preamble to the United States Constitution. There is some legal basis that: "The phrase "People of the United States" has been understood to mean "nationals and citizens."" However, I could only take a look at Dred Scott v. Sandford on this, and that case appears to have affirmed the "negative" that this article described. Thus, I think it would be best that a more clear source asserts the direct quote earlier in this paragraph.
Hence, any such wording such as "historians believe" or "historians estimate" should be avoided in favor of specifying that it is one historian's opinion. As for the other sources that Freoh cited, I, regrettably, could not take a closer look at them. Should their claim of ~3% be accurate, it would then still be, arguably, more important to say that "historians X, Y, and Z estimate..." If Freoh has made any clear changes to the wording of this, then I would encourage him to correct me. This conversation has been terribly messy, and I would not be surprised if I missed a change to this wording.
In other words, the inclusions of Allreet's paragraph, as I see it, are without issue, granted that it be made clear that any such scholar. In this same sense, I don't think I could see why Zinn and other sources that bring up a lesser discussed aspect of this topic are unworthy of inclusion, even if their mentioning should be made clear that it is their individual opinion on the discussion.
This is all that I really have to say on this, and I think any significant change should be made to the Preamble to the United States Constitution article. Maxx-♥ talk and coffee ☕ 13:01, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your thoughtful remarks. For clarification, Morris taught at Columbia and Beeman at the University of Pennsylvania. Both were leading constitutional scholars, as is Akhil Amar (Yale), whose views are consistent with most mainstream/academic sources (America's Constitution, pp. 105-106):

Led by (James) Wilson, American legal theorists in the 1780s conceptually relocated sovereignty from Parliament to the people themselves, and thereby fashioned an intellectual framework facilitating the constitutionalization of federalism, separation of powers, and limited government. In this new framework, no single government entity had, or of right ought to have, all power. Sovereignty originated and remained with the people...

You'll find more of the same in the sources I've cited as well as in many others, for example: Ackerman p. 217 , Ellis p. 204 , Hagemann p. 2 , Jillson p. 45 , Klarman pp. 312-313 , Levy et al pp. 1985-1986 , Maier p. 107 , Morris pp. 55-56 , Rakove pp. 163-164 , and Rossiter p. 248 . Allreet (talk) 17:37, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the additional sources. As for Morris, I have no real defense for why I said his name when I meant I couldn't find much on Morton. I'm going to edit my original post to better reflect my intent.
In any case, I think it would be unsound to argue against the inclusion overall.
Note: This reply was accidentally removed. In addition to what's been said, I should clarify that even if I could not find much on Morton, it is not any sort of personal evaluation or assessment on his academic merit. Maxx-♥ talk and coffee ☕ 18:33, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Freud probably can explain the mixup. Morton is (was?) Professor of History Emeritus at Northeastern Illinois University in Chicago. He authored a couple books on the Revolution. Reliable but nothing remarkable.
Nearly all books on the Constitution discuss "the people", while many if not most describe how the framers came to see the people as "sovereign". None of which is a matter of opinion, just straightforward documentation concerning what was on the founders' minds. Hence, we have many sources reporting the same thing. There's also an international perspective to this in that other governments have been established based on "the will of the people", all inspired by the American experience (see George Billias, American Constitutionalism Heard Round the World, 1776-1989).
Are there side issues and nits to pick about this? Absolutely, but nothing of similar prevalence or weight. Allreet (talk) 19:55, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

More on the Preamble

Judith Butler's quotation is a string of opinions and generalities on the phrase "We the People" that is expressed without any facts being offered. Nearly every sentence is posited as a negative, which means we are told over and over who "the people" are not, never who they are.

To be fair, the paragraph is part of an essay on popular sovereignty and the right of assembly, so its meaning is probably better understood in the larger context. But its vagueness—its lack of specificity—is typical of attacks on the Constitution that begin with the Preamble. What's missed in this is that the Preamble is simply an introduction and therefore, by its nature, a broad generalization or series of generalizations. Furthermore, it, like the rest of the Constitution, is merely a proposal. The legitimization of the entire document, from "We the People" through the last word in Article VII, awaited the people's approval, a process that took more than a year to complete.

That said, I'm certain everyone who reads the Preamble knows what's meant by "We, the People". The criticisms of the phrase, then, from Patrick Henry's through Judith Butler's, are more rhetorical than substantive, more vague than specific, because so little in the Preamble itself is defined. As for vagueness, Freoh closes the remarks above by attacking the Preamble section as prioritiz(ing) a nationalist perspective. The meaning here is unclear—what's a nationalist perspective?—but I'll assume the accusation means the assertions being made tend to legitimize the federal government of the United States. I suppose that's one way of looking at it. Another is that here (as in most related articles in Wikipedia) we are recognizing what was adopted in 1787-1788 and accepting the government that currently exists. In accordance with what most sources accept and exceptionally few sources question. Allreet (talk) 18:20, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well said Allreet, not that it really needed to be inasmuch as there was no concrete contention about who We The People were in the first place. I've often noted that those who make issue with the idea of nationalism rarely are partial to any country, including the one they live in, their estimation of its peoples, past and present, typically narrow and opinionated in scope, ignoring anything that undermines their ill inspired preconceived notions. Just for the record. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:54, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A summary of the ongoing dispute

JeffUK asked at Wikipedia:Closure requests § Talk:Constitution of the United States#A brief survey of the available scholarship for a summary of the current proposals, so I will share my perspective here. The paragraph that we are currently discussing is this one that Allreet proposed adding to § Preamble:

The opening words, "We the People", represented a new thought: the idea that the people and not the states were the source of the government's legitimacy.[2][3][4][5][6][7] Coined by Gouverneur Morris of Pennsylvania, who chaired the convention's Committee of Style, the phrase is considered an improvement on the section's original draft which followed the words We the people with a list of the 13 states.[8][9] In place of the names of the states Morris substituted "of the United States" and then listed the Constitution's six goals, none of which were mentioned originally.[10][11]

After months of discussion, Allreet has been unable to gain a consensus for this addition. There are three main issues:

I am currently arguing for this edit to be reinstated, but I am open to other compromises. DIYeditor seems to have disengaged from the discussion.  — Freoh 01:41, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My post yesterday sums up my view. To reiterate:
"The People" as used is reflected, in large part, by the sources; in addition to this, there is a legal precedent or the terminology in the United States. This is further explained in Preamble to the United States Constitution.
As for the final point, this article is long, and I still maintain that the addition should probably be moved to Preamble to the United States Constitution; Zinn's view (and others) could also be mentioned in the same article. Maxx-♥ talk and coffee ☕ 12:10, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This "summary" (a word I use very lightly) seems to be a continuation of the exact sort of conduct that is described at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1123#Consistant gaslighting behaviour by Freoh. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 14:45, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

After months of discussion, Allreet has been unable to gain a consensus for this addition.

That's a mistruth. Nobody other than Freoh has challenged the text in the Preamble section since I posted it in mid-January. Freoh also stretches the truth in summarizing the recent RfC, which resulted in an overwhelming consensus against their proposals. And I agree with Thebiguglyalien that we're on the same path that led to Freoh's being sanctioned in the ANI three weeks ago.
Regarding the impreciseness of "the people" or as earlier charged, its vagueness, that's absurd given the number of sources that discuss the phrase at length without expressing any such criticisms. Subjective? Hardly. Besides being singled out in the Constitution, the people are also credited as the source of the government's legitimacy in the Declaration of Independence which expresses it this way: "Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed." I've provided more than a dozen RSs supporting a similar view of "We, the people"—6 with the article and 10 above in a discussion with Maxxhiato—most of which do so explicitly. And while I shouldn't have to, I can easily provide a dozen more. Allreet (talk) 19:08, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For everyone's convenience, here are the 10 additional cites I mentioned: Ackerman p. 217, Ellis p. 204, Hagemann p. 2, Jillson p. 45, Klarman pp. 312-313, Levy et al pp. 1985-1986, Maier p. 107, Morris pp. 55-56, Rakove pp. 163-164, and Rossiter p. 248. Allreet (talk) 19:14, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Allreet, you have effectively shown that a large number of sources favorably discuss the people, but again, you have not demonstrated an academic consensus for this perspective, and you are favoring a nationalist point of view. I think that your preferred sources tend to write for a different audience than the Wikipedia readers we prioritize. Academics are more likely to know about the social hierarchies that existed in 18th century America, influencing which of the people actually had a voice. Part of our job as Wikipedia editors is to make this broader context understandable to a more general audience, so I do not see how the number of sources that discuss the phrase at length without expressing any such criticisms is relevant. I am not the only editor to challenge your proposal, and I would be happy with Maxxhiato's proposal to move this content to the Preamble to the United States Constitution article.  — Freoh 15:00, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Freoh: Of the 16 sources mentioned, 13 are respected academics, while 8 of these taught or currently teach at Ivy League colleges. Their audiences happen to be both mainstream and academic, so I fail to see how that's any different from ours. As for "favoring viewpoints" and "preferring sources", that seems more like your MO, since my approach is to research as many sources as possible and objectively report what I find.
As for your current effort, you've provided a handful of papers that are purely academic, but since ratification is their subject, they're not relevant to the Preamble. That leaves you with Zinn, who is neither a constitutional scholar nor a reliable source, and McDonald, whose book was published 65 years ago. How does that represent an academic consensus?
And finally, you've mis-read what Maxxhiato said. He did not propose that the current text be moved to the Preamble article. He was referring to the material you want to add, hence his reference to Zinn. In fact, as he said previously, he has no issues with the text as published. Allreet (talk) 05:08, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Allreet and Freoh: — Allreet has done a remarkable job of presenting both academic and mainstream sources that support the obvious idea that the term We the People means just that. Freoh on the other hand seems to be subjected to several notions.
  • Allreet, you have effectively shown that a large number of sources favorably discuss "the people", but again, you have not demonstrated an academic consensus for this perspective...
If one wants to claim there there is no "academic consensus" it is incumbent that any such claimant present at least as many sources that say otherwise, and of the same caliber as those presented by Allreet. Further, these sources must explain in no uncertain terms, above and beyond speculation and empty conjecture, how the term We the People only represented a small faction of the American population, one who was very conscienceous of rule by an elite and select group, as was the case under British rule. If the Constitution only represented a small privy group the American populace would not have stood for it and the Constitution would never have been ratified. Of course you would have to have a deeper understanding of the American mindset at that point in time to fully understand this.
  • ... and you are favoring a nationalist point of view.
Yet another assumption, that a "nationalist" point of view is somehow erroneous or less than accurate, and is supposed to be something significantly different than that held by modern historians overall. Meanwhile you have not even begun to match the number of modern sources Allreet has presented -- all leading historians in their field.
  • I think that your preferred sources tend to write for a different audience than the Wikipedia readers we prioritize.
Many top level sources have been brought to the table. The assumption that they all are writing for a "different audience" is a notion that can't be supported, and that's all we have, a claim, not even a compelling explanation, let alone reliable sources that support this notion.
  • ...this puffery is ambiguous about which people are included. Women? Indigenous people? Slaves?
"Puffery"? In a different forum you claimed eleven editors were biased -- all of whom held a different assessment on matters than you. Now here you are claiming that many top level reliable sources are biased for essentially the same reason.
For anyone's edification: The Constitution was written at a time where women all over the world, including Indian women, indeed played lesser roles in terms of politics or decision making. This, however, did not mean that American women were not protected by the Constitution, and that the idea of People did not include them. Indians did not consider themselves Americans and had little to no interest in participating in American democracy. Slaves at that point in time were not yet westernized, many of them newly arrived from Africa, sold off into slavery to British slave traders who brought them to the new world, often under European charter -- sold by African tribal chiefs who themselves held many African captives in slavery in its most brutal form. Africans in America had not yet been assimilated into American society, which is nothing unusual for the world at that time. However, their situation was often at the center of the debates, so it's not as if they were completely unaccounted for. — The issue of slavery was put on hold because it would have resulted in a fragmented union, with no Constitution, and with Britain and Spain waiting in the wings for a chance to take advantage of the situation. Unfortunately this is a perspective some so called "modern readers", hundreds of years after the fact, fail to grasp. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:24, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the point-by-point analysis. I've been thinking about Freoh's unique concepts regarding our audience and what "our job" is. I say unique because I've searched our guidelines and have found nothing to suggest what is being asserted. For example, the sources I've found "write for a different audience than the Wikipedia readers we prioritize". That's total nonsense. I also believe it's nonsense that I have to demonstrate an academic consensus for what I've published. We can't claim an academic consensus on our own—we need sources that make the claim. And since I haven't found any such sources, I've made no such claims.
What I do know from my research is that most works written by leading academics acknowledge that popular sovereignty was widely accepted by the founders as the source of authority for establishing governments at both the state and federal levels. To be clear about this, I've found some works do not address this at all but no sources that refute it.
Meanwhile, I believe we'd all do well to review the following guidelines that pertain to these issues. I'm highlighting key points, but it's important the full guidelines be read.
WP:Notability (academics)
  • "This guideline reflects consensus about the notability of academics as measured by their academic achievements." (The guideline goes on to outline credentials to help us determine an academic's notability, such as professorships, published works, awards, etc.)
WP:RS/AC
  • "Stated simply, any statement in Wikipedia that academic consensus exists on a topic must be sourced rather than being based on the opinion or assessment of editors."
WP:Mainstream
  • "Wikipedia is a mainstream encyclopedia. This means that writers and editors on Wikipedia should strive for articles that would be appreciated as being of the highest quality by a consensus of experts in any field of science or scholarship."
  • "Wikipedia depends on the most reliable sources to verify content, and Wikipedia relies on vetted academic sources to determine what the mainstream understanding of a topic is."
  • "Many statements of fact made in Wikipedia can be reliably sourced as being disputed by somebody somewhere. This is irrelevant to our task of writing a mainstream encyclopedia, and should not be used as justification to create an article that differs from that of a mainstream encyclopedia."
Allreet (talk) 18:57, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Preamble section

Re: Freoh's comment — I would be happy with Maxxhiato's proposal to move this content to the Preamble to the United States Constitution article.

The Preamble section is very short to begin with, so there is no pressing reason, or consensus, to be moving its basic content from the Constitution article. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:24, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The section is short, but the article is long. The main reason I suggested the transfer is because the Preamble to the United States Constitution article has a section on the interpretation of The People. Maxx-♥ talk and coffee ☕ 12:09, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
By saying "the section is short, but the article is long", it would seem that you're suggesting that more content be added to the Preamble section here, yet you want to transfer what little content that exists here to the Preamble article, as if the latter is lacking something, so your reply is a little difficult to understand. If anything we could mention that the preamble has received a varied interpretation by some historians, always keeping due weight in mind, not over-shadowing what the simple term We the People has come to be understood as by the people at large and mainstream scholarship, new and old. Also, many articles have, or should have, a healthy proportion of contextual overlap. Simply because something is mentioned in one article, doesn't mean it can't be covered, in due proportion, in another. This is often practiced in various chapters of a given book. Any biography about e.g.George Washington, will reiterate the fact, in any number of chapters, that he was the Commanding General of the Continental Army. i.e.The various articles about the Constitution are like chapters about that subject, often covering the same idea in each. If anything, more should be said about the Preamble in this main article about the Constitution. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:31, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My intent was not to say that overlap cannot exist or that we should remove most of the content in this section. It is more that any extended points of discussion or interpretations of what The People means should preferably go to the section of another article devoted to explaining it in more detail. Mentioning that such a discussion exists here is fine and probably expected at this point. Apologies if I was unclear. Maxx-♥ talk and coffee ☕ 18:05, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
no Disagree with Gwillhickers. The preamble is short, this article is long, and I agree with Maxxhiato that the points of view are too complicated here to be worth discussing the controversy (or prioritizing a nationalist interpretation, as in Allreet's proposal). I have been asking for months, and you have still not justified your view that the simple term We the People has come to be understood as by the people at large and mainstream scholarship, new and old.  — Freoh 14:32, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your opinion, we've heard it before often enough, and you still have not come close to demonstrating your view, and continue to ignore many leading and reliable sources in the process. Narrow opinions from socialists like Beard and Communists like Zinn, and other like minded individuals, have roundly been refuted by multiple and reputable historians, and shown for what they are. Once again, we need to say more about the Preamble for the simple reason that this is the main article for the Constitution. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:20, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note. It's understood that various anti-federalists felt that the Constitution gave the federal government too much authority, which prompted the Bill of Rights, and though they may have disagreed with the idea that We The People did not refer to them, and others, it was still authored in a Preamble and included as such to a Constitution which is still in existence to this day. If this was not true the people would not have stood for it and the idea of ratification would not even had made it to the table. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:15, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'll add just two things:
  • The content in question is not a proposal. It's the published text.
  • What justifies the published text is the preponderance of sources supporting it and the dearth of sources that disagree.
Allreet (talk) 18:18, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The history regarding the colonial mindset towards privy or hereditary rulership and an acceptable Constitution is also what justifies it. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:51, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I do not ignore many leading and reliable sources. I recognize that there are differing opinions about what the people means in the preamble and to what extent it is legitimate. I have made several proposals that include both points of view, and others that include neither. You two continue to ignore the sources that I have provided, and there is no dearth of them. Your sources disagree with mine, but that does not mean that my sources have been refuted. Other sources refer to "Taney's narrowly juridical understanding of the preamble's invocation of 'We, the People'".[12] This is too complicated an issue to summarize with Allreet's proposed text, which is both vague and one-sided. Why do you oppose moving this controversy to the Preamble to the United States Constitution article, where we can flesh it out in greater detail?  — Freoh 01:49, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The literature on popular sovereignty and the Constitution is vast, but the basic details in the Preamble section are simple, to the point, and completely in line with the writings of nearly every major historian of the past 50 years. Should we want to "flesh out" the complexities of the subject—for example, its philosophical development and the concept's bearing on the founders' intentions—yes, that would require more real estate, in which case, the Preamble article would be the perfect place for it. Allreet (talk) 07:13, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You keep saying essentially the same thing: that your sources are mainstream while mine are fringe. You have provided sources that agree with your point of view, and I have provided sources that disagree. As Maxxhiato pointed out, you have not demonstrated any sort of academic consensus for your point of view, so I do not understand why you repeatedly assert that nearly every major historian agrees with you. To repeat, I have three main concerns with your proposal:
  • It is unclear which people the Constitution includes (and did include) when it discusses the people. I have given two sources that explain this ambiguity, and you have given none that refute it.
  • There is academic disagreement about to what degree the people is valid. Some sources confirm its validity, while some dismiss it as propaganda. I have not seen an academic consensus either way.
  • It is redundant to include the full text of the preamble and then even longer text that mostly repeats what is already stated in the preamble itself, especially for an article this long.
Repeatedly calling your proposal mainstream and mine fringe is not going to work unless you have sources to back it up.  — Freoh 12:07, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To further clarify my point and reading of WP:AC, it seems like someone would have to have a source that explicitly states it is the academic consensus. From what I've read (confession—I have not read all the sources here because there are a lot of them), that does not seem to be entirely the case. I know some people[who?] will write "some scholars..." and then put all the sources at the end of the claim. I'm not sure if even that's best practice, and we should really write the names of the scholar and their opinion in this case. Otherwise, I'm worried about it being considered our research (stating it's the academic consensus independently of anyone else).
This is another reason why I considered the moving of material as an alternative solution. Ultimately, I am considering putting down the different views in the Preamble article. Maxx-♥ talk and coffee ☕ 12:44, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
References

References

  1. ^ Sinwell, Luke (2022-07-28). "What Universities Owe Democracy, by Ronald J. Daniels, with Grant Shreve and Phillip Spector". Education as Change. 26. doi:10.25159/1947-9417/11705. ISSN 1947-9417.
  2. ^ Amar 2005, pp. 5–7, 29.
  3. ^ Beeman 2009, pp. 332, 347–348, 404.
  4. ^ Berkin 2002, p. 90.
  5. ^ Bickel 1975, pp. 16–18.
  6. ^ Morton 2006, p. 225.
  7. ^ Zink 2009, p. 444.
  8. ^ Bowen 1966, p. 240.
  9. ^ Bernstein 1987, p. 183.
  10. ^ Congressional Research Service, U.S. Congress. "Historical Background on the Preamble". constitution.congress.gov. Constitution Annotated: Analysis and Interpretation of the U.S. Constitution. Retrieved January 16, 2023.
  11. ^ Warren 1928, p. 393.
  12. ^ Frank, Jason (2016). "Staging Dissensus: Frederick Douglass and 'We, the People'". In Schaap, Andrew (ed.). Law and agonistic politics. London: Routledge. p. 95. ISBN 978-1-315-59147-6. OCLC 950471935.

Title of "Original Frame" section needs to be changed

"Original Frame" may have been a title used for the Constitution as drafted and ratified, but the document has been significantly altered since then by various amendments. Thus, this section says nothing about the original Articles and instead focuses solely on the Constitution's current provisions.

For a guide to the changes in the Constitution's language, refer to the following pdf: U.S. Constitution. The pdf includes both the original and current wording. Text that has been changed is identified by a bracket and asterisk (in each case).

There are numerous possibilities for renaming the section. I prefer "The Constitution" since it's simple, direct, and implies currency. "Preamble and Articles" would also work, as would "The Constitution's provisions". I don't feel the same about something generic such as "Current provisions" or obscure such as "Current frame".

I would appreciate other suggestions and related discussion, leading to a request for consensus. Thanks. Allreet (talk) 13:15, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing this out. 'Preamble and Articles' seem most accurate ('The Constitution' would be a duplicate, kind of, of the page's title, and would necessitate moving the amendment sections to subsections). Randy Kryn (talk) 13:56, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the existing section title is sort of generic. I believe simplicity is best, using The Constitution for the title, leaving the Articles, which are already in subsections, where they are, as they are indeed components of the Constitution. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:56, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I tend to like "The Constitution". The current title isn't just generic—it's incorrect. I understand Randy's point. "The Constitution" does seem redundant given the main title. That said, in its "minimalist" simplicity, it's explicit, possesses immediacy, and has a certain (if I may say) "charm". Let's wait for feedback from more editors. Allreet (talk) 22:26, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, but to make my point of view clearer, if "The Constitution" is used then not only the Preamble and Articles would be included as subsections but the amendments would have to be subjections as well. Seems better presentation to not do that, because the Preamble and Articles are the original constitution in a section separate from the amendments. And your option name of "Preamble and Articles" would then fit better, and it may grow on you. ,Randy Kryn (talk) 02:24, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Or how about best of both worlds "The Constitution:Preamble and Articles". Randy Kryn (talk) 02:34, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Randy: In revisiting the subject, I see your point about the Amendments being part of the Constitution as well and therefore belong under this section. If we would do what you suggest, we'd have 4 main subsections—Preamble, Articles, Closing Endorsement, Amendments—with multiple "4th level" subsections under the 2nd and 4th of these. This would make the Constitution section exceptionally long (Unratified Amendments would still have their own section), but that's not necessarily a "deal breaker". Anyone else have some thoughts on this? Allreet (talk) 19:08, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Took another look at the table of contents and yes, "The Constitution" works (the table makes it obvious that the wording means the original constitution and doesn't include the amendments). Randy Kryn (talk) 04:16, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Preamble, Articles (I-VII) and the Closing endorsement sub-sections should go under The Constitution, as they do now under the Original Frame section. Since the Amendments came along after the Constitution was ratified, both the Amending the Constitution and Ratification sections should have their own major sections, all sections coming under the umbrella of the Constitution article itself. Imo all we really need do is change the name from Original Frame to The Constitution. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:48, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Gwillhickers and Randy Kryn: Agreed on all of the above. One additional possibility is to include a title with each Article. This is done occasionally at other sites. Here's the Constitution Center's lineup:
  • Article I — Legislative Branch
  • Article II — Executive Branch
  • Article III — Judicial Branch
  • Article IV — States, Citizenship, New States (alternative The States)
  • Article V — Amendment Process
  • Article VI — Debts, Supremacy, Oaths, Religious Tests (alternative Legal Status of the Constitution)
  • Article VII — Ratification
What I like is that the titles tell what's inside, giving each Article an identity. I also prefer the alternatives, which came from the American Bar Association. Of course, there are other possibilities, such as The Presidency for Article II and The Judiciary for Article III. The decision becomes subjective, so it's doubtful all editors would agree on each and every title given the range of possibilities. What we do need to agree on is the concept, and then let a single editor make the final call. Allreet (talk) 14:02, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Allreet, good thinking. If nobody objects please do as you see best. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:40, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Allreet and Randy Kryn: — I second that. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:26, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
no Disagree with renaming the section The Constitution. The whole article is about the constitution, and the proposed structure makes it seem like the § Ratified amendments are not part of § The Constitution. It also ignores the MOS:SECTIONHEAD guidelines. What is wrong with § Original frame? Allreet, are you saying that the Three-fifths Compromise is not original because it was not part of the first draft of the constitution? I think that it is clear from context that original means at the time of ratification, and it better justifies the structural separation from § Ratified amendments.  — Freoh 16:55, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Original frame" is obtuse. I can't wrap my head around why it was chosen. The section it's introducing is the contents of the document, so why are we giving the document a different name that what is used everywhere else just for this title? Then combine it with the term "lead header" immediately underneath and you quash any chance of a layperson understanding. One of these terms has to go. TheSavageNorwegian 17:22, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Lead caption" I mean, whoops. TheSavageNorwegian 17:25, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The title "Original frame" would apply to the Constitution's original text, whereas the section in question addresses the Constitution's current provisions, which are different because of various amendments. Re-read the rationale I provided above for changing the title. But to add a specific example: The Three-Fifths Compromise was spelled out in Article I of the "original frame" and was referred to in other articles, but amendments related to slavery and elections changed all that. Hence, the compromise is not mentioned anywhere in the section, and hence, the title "Original frame" is incorrect besides being "obtuse", as TheSavageNorwegian points out.
And so, Freoh, what would you suggest for a title to replace it? "Current provisions"? "The Constitution today"? Both boring but acceptable. In any case, do as I did: suggest something and see what others have to say. BTW, the section's opening paragraph also needs to be changed. It probably should address how the Constitution has changed over the years. I've been looking high and low for sources and haven't found any as of yet that offer an explicit explanation. Odd, I know, but true. Allreet (talk) 18:26, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The only changes to the Constitution were the addition of Amendments. Since the Ratification in 1788 the Preamble and the Articles have remained the same, which is why Original frame is inappropriate, as it suggests the Articles, the framework of the Constitution, have changed since 1788. We should just name the section Framework. Finding sources that cover the addition of Amendments in overall context shouldn't be difficult. A good place to begin might be here. As you know, there are many books and journals about Amending the Constitution that can be found in Bibliography of the United States Constitution. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:40, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Gwillhickers is correct in that the provisions changed by amendment still appear; however, in all the copies I've seen, the defunct language is bracketed or "greyed out" to indicate it no longer applies. Meanwhile, the text on the Articles only discusses the provisions that remain in effect; it includes nothing on subjects such as the Three-Fifths Compromise or the return of escaped slaves.
While I have plenty of sources on the amendments, what I haven't been able to find is a straightforward explanation of the redacting practice. As for "Framework" as a title, I think it's obscure, that is, not very meaningful or widely understood. Allreet (talk) 05:06, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

New title and introductory text

I changed the title and added introductory text. The title that had been applied should not have been reverted to "Original frame". While MOS:SECTIONTITLES guidelines suggest not using a title that refers back to the main title, far worse is allowing a title we know to be erroneous to stand. Changing the section's title also required a new introduction, so rather than keep the irrelevant explanation of "original frame", I posted a temporary intro and will add citations to support it once I find the appropriate sources. Suggestions regarding these proposed changes would be appreciated. Allreet (talk) 14:40, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just took a quick look, maybe 'Articles' in place of 'Provisions' (less confusing?). Randy Kryn (talk) 15:04, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmmm... I dunno. Now we have a rather long section title that replicates two subsections titles below it, which is redundant.. I still feel Framework is more appropriate, as a 'frame' is the basic structure of any thing or idea, and since that title comes under the heading of the US Constitution article there should be nothing obscure or confusing about it, as it's a straightforward and basic idea. .-- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:15, 3 May 2023 (UTC).[reply]
  • Re: Redacting. Since there was no fundamental change in the principles set forth in the Preamble and Articles, this idea is more of a historical curiosity than anything else. I've no objections to mentioning this idea as long as it's brief, sources permitting. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:20, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Randy Kryn and Gwillhickers: I understand both your concerns, mostly. "Provisions" was an attempt to avoid redundancy, but there is no synonym for Preamble. "Framework" is kinda okay except the Constitution is more a solid foundation than an outline, though it's certainly both. The other problem is its "originality" and then the fact that the average reader is not likely to understand it as such. Comprehension or the lack of it applies to "redacted" as well; a little used word. The length of the title bothers me too.
Thinking out loud, the word "text" very broadly says it all, as does "content". A synonym for either that's more specific and to the point (appropriate) would be "provisions". And so, how's "The Constitution's provisions"? That even covers the endorsement, again, broadly speaking. "Jumping the gun", I'll post it so you both (and others) can get a "real feel". If it rubs the wrong way, revert immediately—or rather, after taking a deep breath. And sincere thanks for the feedback...we'll get there yet. Allreet (talk) 18:00, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
How about "Original document". Randy Kryn (talk) 02:24, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Constitution's provisions seems to work, as it's an all inclusive idea.. Original document would be no different than Original framework. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:28, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Original document" seems more understandable and defining than "Original framework". It describes the actual thing which became, upon signing, the United States Constitution. The preamble and articles sections have always referred to the original wording. Not everyone knows what "provisions" means in this context, not really a common word and may not exactly fit as a descriptor for either the preamble or the closing endorsement. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:44, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Haven't dug much into this aspect yet, but I thought Allreet thought the idea of Original was inappropriate. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:05, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Original Constitution, as another option. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:16, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The section is more about the "Current document", and that would be fine as a title, though we should probably move the Amendments into this section since they're part of the Constitution. There's very little under the Articles on the original text. Allreet (talk) 04:20, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Randy Kryn, Gwillhickers, Freoh, and Thesavagenorwegian: feedback? Allreet (talk) 04:25, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this is a difficult one, summarizing the original constitution in a few words. If the amendments are moved into the section then your idea of "The Constitution" would fit (I was trying to come up with something acceptable for a section devoted to the original document's preamble, articles, and the closing signed page). If everything is included then "The Constitution" would be both accurate and non-confusing. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:41, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think this may be an exception to MOS:SECTIONTITLES which describes its guidelines as preferences, not hard rules. But for the sake of compromise and moving on, I was suggesting a combination of your last recommendation and one that fits the section: "Current document". That also suits the new intro. I'll move the Amendments into the section to see how it looks, but will wait on changing the title until we hear from others. Thanks. Allreet (talk) 14:47, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've made the proposed changes. I think the section looks good as formatted and conforms with WP standards as well as "universal" ones. Length is a bit of a concern, but more important is "reader interest"; that is, if they've come here to learn about the Constitution, here it is. Now "Current document" would work well as the section's title since it covers the current text of all sections. Feedback? Allreet (talk) 15:26, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Normally I have reservations about using level 3 and 4 sub sections, but the layout as it is now looks good. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:41, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agree that the new structure is better, though it might be better as just Provisions rather than § The Constitution's provisions.  — Freoh 13:09, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

First government

In the First government section, comprised of one sentence, the First and Second Continental Congress are mentioned, in rather general terms. Should we not at least mention the inciteful issues (Intolerable Acts) that brought the colonial delegates together? The first official document of the Continental Congress, which brought these delegates together, was the Articles of Association, and as such, it functioned in a governmental capacity, with colonial representatives, the likes of which ultimately fed into the Revolutionary War only weeks later, as the indignant and arrogant King George III wouldn't yield one inch to colonial appeals. No, we won't refer to it as a Founding Document, but it was something that surely planted the seeds of independence and functioned as a separate government, independent of royal oversight. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:58, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Of course. The Continental Association is considered by many as one of the four main Founding documents of the United States (the Association created the United Colonies). Highly important to the first government of the nation being formed by these various actions and documents. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:07, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but as said, to avoid another ongoing 'rematch', we'll just mention it in neutral terms as to whether it was a Founding Document, and simply concentrate on the course of events that brought the colonies together, which ultimately led to the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution itself, as these chain of events are all part of the same train. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:22, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just was accenting that yes, it should be mentioned within the sentence, in a few but enough words to capsulize its importance and meaning to the flow of founding events (agreed that the "founding document" language not needed here). Randy Kryn (talk) 03:39, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Continental Congress of course warrants mention. Many sources indicate it was the first step toward Union, and all identify the Intolerable Acts as the impetus. While the Continental Association was significant, I wouldn't credit it as a step leading to war. The King's indignation was aroused well before the idea for forming a Congress was conceived. In February 1774, he wrote to Lord Dartmouth that "the dye is now cast", while Dartmouth complained of the colonists' "propositions that lead to inevitable destruction" in August, a month before Congress met. Interestingly, according to some sources, the Congress was an extra-legal body that was formed as an early expression of "the will of the people", since it had no formal grounding and was intended to circumvent the official assemblies in each of the colonies. Allreet (talk) 15:37, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the king was already peeved at the colonists, but the Continental Association, with its representatives, prospect of boycott and colonial independence, was sort of an official slap in the face, and was much more than a final straw - it was throwing gasoline on the fire. We don't have to say it was the sole reason that led to war, as there were many issues up in the air, but the Continental Association brought everything to a head and made it clear that colonial independence was more than a mere idea, it was something that now had teeth in it, and the Continental Association, with its boycott in actual motion, made those teeth felt. It's certainly no mere coincidence that war followed almost immediately. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:33, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Based on sources, I tend to disagree. Britain declared Massachusetts in a "state of rebellion" in February 1775. The Continental Association might merit a footnote (drawing on the declaration's mention of vague "combinations and engagements...in other colonies") but absent specific acknowledgement in sources, attributing anything more would be conjecture. The same applies to coincidence. Much happened between October and February, and we can't "write history" from guesswork, only hard evidence. Allreet (talk) 21:48, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Assuming the Continental Association, largely prompted by circumstances in Massachusetts, btw, was something that had little bearing in Britain's decision to wage war on the entire continent, not just Massachusetts, would be a mistake. The Association told the King that all the colonies were behind Massachusetts, and as such, told him that all the colonies were in a state of rebellion. As said, no one is going to say any one issue, i.e.Massachusetts, was the cause of the war. We simply list briefly the course of events that led up to the war, and ultimately an independent government. Many notable historians place great significance on the Continental Association, and it deserves more than a footnote at the bottom of the article. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:15, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize for not being clearer. As a "footnote" I only meant in relation to steps leading to war. In terms of steps leading to Union and Independence, it was a significant one. If I had to list them, I'd include the Intolerable Acts, First Continental Congress, Declarations & Resolves, Continental Association, Petition to the King, Second Continental Congress, Olive Branch Petition, and Declaration. That's in chronological order, not order of importance. Also significant as you mentioned were events in Massachusetts that fueled sentiments (Boston Tea Party, Savoy Resolves, town meetings, colonial assembly, militias) and caught the attention of the Brits. I'm sure I missed something, but it's a start. And I agree there was no single cause, but a succession of causes and effects. Allreet (talk) 02:51, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Alleet! I thought we were going to lock horns through the summer on that one -- just like ole times. :-) . Yes, let's just list significant events/issues and be done with it. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:05, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
lol Allreet (talk) 17:54, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sources covering the Continental Congress, its Association and the founding
  • "The Continental Association is one of the most important documents of American colonial history. By authorizing the establishment of local committees to enforce the embargo of trade, it provided the apparatus that would eventually develop into the government of Revolution.[1]
  • "These were the first institutions of independent local government in the future United States."[2]
  • "Section eleven of the resolution specified that enforcement would lie with committees. Thus were the elected foundations of the new revolutionary government put in place."[3]
  • "The Association stands out as an important step toward the creation of an organic union among the colonies.[4]
  • "The Continental Association is significant in that it got the ball rolling toward independence and the colonies speaking in a united voice.[5]
  • They networked the provinces, which ultimately resulted in the Continental Congress where representatives began speaking against Great Britain with one resounding voice. Indeed, through the colonial Committees of correspondence, our Founders encountered British oppression, explored American unity, and exchanged visions of the future that would become the foundation of our nation.[6]
  • "The Continental Congress occupies a most interesting and important position in our national and political history. Suddenly brought together to meet a pressing emergency, its membership was made up from the most thoughtful among the men of the country. Few of them, if any, conceived that events would so happen that they would be called upon to adopt a policy which must inevitably lead to establishing a new power among the nations.[7]
  • "Even before outbreak of hostilities an embryonic "federal" effort had been mounted, with the Stamp Act Congress and then with the First and Second Continental Congresses.[8]
  • "The Continental Congress, which set the most salient national precedents, delegated legislative authority by the bucketload."[9]
  • "In agreeing to meet in a Continental Congress, Americans, whether they knew it or not, consented to a major political revolution, for they transferred the debate over theories and policies from the local to what was in effect the “national” level".[10]
  • "The Association provided a “national” policy, but its effectiveness would depend upon action taken in each of the colonies. ...the Association was a reality that had to be faced as soon as Congress adjourned. Furthermore, many Americans were convinced that eventually they would reach a fork in the road ahead. One fork might lead to reconciliation with Britain; the other would probably lead to independence, and the Association pointed toward that fork."[11]
  • "...the Continental Congress made its chief contributions to the building of the nation. ... which in time were transmitted to its successor to form an essential part of the new and more adequate system of government. It was, in fact, in the Continental Congress that were developed and formulated many of those fundamental principles of government that have become our national heritage."[12]
  • "With its emphasis on marshalling popular support, the Association thus marked an important early step toward the eventual creation of avowedly republican governments."[13]
  • "With a rather human predilection for finality historians have generally accepted the view that the American Revolution was inevitable since the members of the First Continental Congress were committed to revolt from the outset."[14]
  • "The Union is much older than the Constitution. It was formed, in fact, by the Articles of Association [by the First Continental Congress] in 1774. It was matured and continued by the Declaration of Independence in 1776. It was further matured, and the faith of all the then thirteen States expressly plighted and engaged that it should be perpetual, by the Articles of Confederation in 1778. And finally, in 1787, one of the declared objects for ordaining and establishing the Constitution was “to form a more perfect Union.”"[15]
  • "Thus had this awkward but clear-headed Yankee [Roger Sherman] helped to found a great nation. He was the only patriot to sign the four most important documents signalling America’s break with England: the Association of the First Continental Congress, the Declaration of Independence, the Articles of Confederation, and the Constitution."[16]
  • "Its adoption proved to be one of the most decisive colonial actions prior to the signing of the Declaration of Independ ence. Enforcement of the Articles of Association by various extra-legal organizations ? chiefly the General Committee, the Provincial Congress, and the various Committees of Observation is an important chapter in the history of South Carolina and the Revolutionary War.."[17]
  1. ^ Ammerman, 1974, pp. 83-84
  2. ^ Phillips, 2012, p. 269
  3. ^ Phillips, 2012, p. 110
  4. ^ Burnett, 1974, p. 56
  5. ^ Werther, 2017, Essay
  6. ^ Warford-Johnston, 2016, p. 83
  7. ^ Friedenwald, 1895 , p. 197
  8. ^ Johnson, 2016, p. 155
  9. ^ Mortenson & Bagley, 2021, p. 303
  10. ^ Jensen, 1968, p. 486
  11. ^ Jensen, 1968, p. 515
  12. ^ Burnett, 1974, p. ix
  13. ^ Rakove, 1979, p. 52
  14. ^ Mullett, 1931, p. 258
  15. ^ Abraham Lincoln, First Inaugural Address, 1861
  16. ^ Meister, 1987, p. 311
  17. ^ Gould, 1986, pp. 30-48

Sources:

-- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:15, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Gould, Christopher (January 1986). "The South Carolina and Continental Associations: Prelude to Revolution". The South Carolina Historical Magazine. 87 (1): 30–48. JSTOR 27567931.

Regarding article size and other issues

I was curious regarding the size of the Constitution article relative to related articles as well as to its "popularity" (as measured by page views). The following table tells the tale on both counts:

ARTICLE Size (bytes) Monthly Views
Founding Fathers 207,038 90,790
American Revolution 207,192 100,363
Revolutionary War 310,214 173,685
Continental Congress 41,504 10,172
1st Continental Congress 18,337 8,816
2nd Continental Congress 25,773 14,198
Declaration of Independence 150,529 95,623
Articles of Confederation 74,215 24,513
Confederation Congress 23,137 6,321
Constitutional Convention 104,044 15,439
U.S. Constitution 169,145 109,745
Slavery in the U.S. 328,463 68,010

Taking into account the Constitution's significance, its detailed background, and the interest of readers, I'd say the article is about the right size and could even accommodate some additional material. Not too much, buts its current size shouldn't deter us from adding more material nor require us to cut anything. Allreet (talk) 00:44, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Article size, the likes of which are only covered by Guidelines, not rigid WP policy, was never an issue with me, until someone made it so. The Constitution is among the most written about subjects, par with Washington, Jefferson and Franklin, and judging from the never ending stream of sources we've encountered over this last month, I dare say, even more. The Constitution being the longest lasting document and form of government anywhere, I'd say (tongue in check), let's double the size of the article. Given the multitude of sources, a Historiography section could be one such addition, with a few brief statements about how historians have covered the document, given the vast acclaim, and of course the criticism and controversy among the naysayers, who, if I may, seem to have ignored the big picture and the test of time that the Constitution has endured..-- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:13, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bill of Rights

Currently the below passage is located in the Influences section.

The United States Bill of Rights consists of 10 amendments added to the Constitution in 1791, as supporters of the Constitution had promised critics during the debates of 1788.[80] The English Bill of Rights (1689) was an inspiration for the American Bill of Rights. Both require jury trials, contain a right to keep and bear arms, prohibit excessive bail and forbid "cruel and unusual punishments." Many liberties protected by state constitutions and the Virginia Declaration of Rights were incorporated into the Bill of Rights.

It is the only particular topic in the Constitution that is covered in this section, which otherwise lends itself to how various people and ideas influenced the formation of the Constitution. The passage would be better placed as part of an opening paragraph to the Amendments section.. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:35, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Bill of Rights is already mentioned in the article's lede, so the question is, should it be included here in the Influences section and if so, in what regard? The English Bill of Rights was no doubt an influence, while a much more distant origin was the Magna Carta. However, the immediate (meaning direct) inspirations were the state constitutions of the 1770s-1780s and the Virginia Declaration of Rights, which was separate from Virginia's constitution.
Given these connections, it makes sense to me that the Bill of Rights is part of this section. But Gwillhickers's observation that the roots of other specific provisions of the Constitution aren't mentioned is well taken. What occurs to me, then, is why not? For example, the idea of a bicameral legislature most likely was drawn from Britain's House of Commons and House of Lords. The concept of a chief executive also may have come from England, its prime minister, but what other countries had leaders who weren't royal or dictatorial in nature? And where'd the brilliant idea come from that the constitution was mutable, a living document that could be amended not just because of weaknesses or oversights but because the country's needs were bound to change with the times?
That's my two cents. What say others? Allreet (talk) 13:10, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't address the main point about the Amendments section. The Bill of Rights is already covered there, in detail, not its influences but its provisions. Allreet (talk) 13:14, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Influences section should just be confined to that, esp since the B.O.R. came after ratification, and all that influenced its outcome. Yes, why aren't other items there -- i.e.because they are covered elsewhere in the appropriate sections. That the B.O.R. is mentioned in the lede has no bearing on whether it should be covered in the Influences section. Many topics are rightly mentioned in the lede. The question, though, is in what sections should these topics be covered? Re: The United States Bill of Rights consists of 10 amendments... This summary statement, albeit a major detail, but a detail nonetheless, occurs no where else in the article except in the Influences section, and has nothing to do with influencial ideas that occurred during drafting and ratification. Imo, this definitive statement should be part of the opening paragraph in the Amendments section, not as some detail mentioned elsewhere. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:15, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Influences section. is lacking citations in five of its paragraphs. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:12, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Influences

  • The influence that Blackstone and his book had on legal instruction in England, the American colonies, and later the United States cannot be exagerated.[1]
  • For the English, therefore, as William Blackstone, the great eighteenth-century jurist, pointed out, there could be no distinction between the “constitution or frame of government” and “the system of laws.” All were of a piece: every act of Parliament was part of the constitution and all law, both customary and statute, was thus constitutional. “Therefore,” concluded the English theorist William Paley, “the terms constitutional and unconstitutional, mean legal and illegal.”[2]
  • Throughout the Revolution the Blackstonian doctrine of “legislative omnipotence” was in the ascendant. Marshall read Blackstone, and so did Iredell.[3]
  • The amendments to the Constitution that Congress proposed in 1791 were strongly influenced by state declarations of rights, particularly the Virginia Declaration of Rights of 1776, which incorporated a number of the protections of the 1689 English Bill of Rights and the Magna Carta.[4]
  • The idea and practice of limited government— the rule of law itself—proved the most important political part of the English legal heritage. It had shaped the complex of institutions, rules, practices, and customs that make up the English constitution. Its bounds included the Magna Carta, the source of modern substantive and procedural due process. ... To this legacy of constitutionalism, the colonists added their unique codicil: the written state-ment of basic law, which was to come to full flower with the drafting of the Articles of Confederation in 1778 and the Federal Constitution in 1787.[5]
  • The most frequently cited writers during the founding era were Montesquieu, Blackstone, Locke, and Hume.[6]
  • One does not need to know anything about what happened in the Federal Convention of 1787, where the common law was again and again relied upon and where the authority of William Black- stone, as the great eighteenth-century expositor of the common law, could be routinely invoked.[7]
  • The "fundamental" rights that the framers were anxious to secure were those described by Blackstone — personal security and the freedom to move about and to own property. .[8]
  • Those who proposed the Constitution of the United States saw the problem of legislation in much the same terms as Montesquieu had.[9]
  • Jefferson’s theory followed a line of thought already marked out during the English revolution by Milton, Sidney, and Locke. This body of thought, adopted by Colonial writers and developed by Jefferson in the direction of minimized government and popular control, represents the major influence of political writing upon his political ideas.[10]
Citations and Sources
  1. ^ Zeydel, 1966, p. 302
  2. ^ Wood, 2011, p. 176
  3. ^ Wood, 1979, p. 21
  4. ^ Library of Congress, Essay
  5. ^ Randall, 2003, p. 13
  6. ^ Lutz, 1988, p. 146
  7. ^ Anastaplo1989, p. 135
  8. ^ Hickok, 1991, p. 15
  9. ^ Cohler, 1988, p.148
  10. ^ Caldwell, 1944, p. 118
Gwillhickers, nice work identifying the section's needs and tracking down additional references. Allreet (talk) 15:28, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. As always, going through the many sources, while offering well established ideas, sometimes is something of an adventure. The following statement from the Influences section, which on the surface seems simple enough, is actually sort of a tough one to nail down with a source that says this specifically:
Several ideas in the Constitution, however, were new. These were associated with the combination of
consolidated government along with federal relationships with constituent states.
There are sources that say that the idea of unalienable rights is a first, while there are some sources that also say that the Scottish Enlightenment played a significant role in advancing original governmental precepts. Sometime soon I'll post some of the quotes and their respective sources to get some feed back on that one. As it is, this statement remains uncited. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:04, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Scottish Enlightenment

@Allreet, Randy Kryn, and Rjensen: — Francis Hutcheson, David Hume, Henry Home, Lord Kames, Montesquieu, John Locke, and others were Scots and Englishmen who contributed greatly to the Scottish Enlightenment and American Enlightenment, whose works on moral, spiritual and political philosophy were routinely read by Madison, Franklin, Adams and other founders.

Below are a few sources added to the US Const Bibliography. There are others and more are likely to follow. Imo this aspect of the Influences that bore upon the founders needs to be covered with a short summary paragraph, at least. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:10, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Upon reflection it seems the idea that the Scottish and English social-political scientists/philosophers during the Enlightenment of the eighteenth century had anything but a passing influence on the founders is an idea that may be, to some, something that is perhaps a remote or otherwise abstract idea in terms of what inspired the arduous forging the Constitution. With the idea that no one school of thought can take credit for 'inventing the political wheel', it seems we can't dismiss this advent as something more or less relatively inconsequential to the founding. e.g.According to many credible sources Madison and Franklin were steeped in enlightenment ideas. If there are no objections, or reservations, a proposed paragraph to this idea needs to be included in the Influences section. With all the commonality between the Americans and the British, it's something of a wonder how King Charles III simply ignored all the appeals of the colonists who cited English Common Law and the rights of Englishmen as it concerned everyone on both sides of the Atlantic. - - Gwillhickers (talk) 04:01, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If the information presented in § Influences may have been more or less relatively inconsequential to the founding, then I would prefer trimming the questionable parts (or cutting the section entirely) rather than expanding the section with more speculation. If we are including influences that are not universally accepted, then we should include non-white influences as well.[5] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Freoh (talk • contribs) May 17, 2023 (UTC)
Please pay more attention to what was actually written. i.e. . . . it seems we can't dismiss this advent as something more or less relatively inconsequential to the founding. There are a multitude of reliable sources that cover the events, influences, that led to the Constitution. If you know of any "non white" influences that are covered by reliable sources please present them. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:43, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Miller admits that "American Indian" influence is not "universally accepted." Donald Grinde and Bruce Johansen in Exemplar of Liberty[6] appear to be the most ardent supporters of Native influence on US political theory during the colonial period. However, this topic is not without its discussion. Samuel Payne Jr,[7] William Starna & George Hamell[8], and Philip A. Levy[9] have written or critiqued the subject.
Payne examined the issue from multiple angles and came to the conclusion that there was no noteworthy impact, and specifically calls out the three divisions of power as not being like the three branches of government as drafted in the US Constitution (618).
Starna & Hamell come to a similar conclusion and also admit that the scholarship is presently "inadequate." (427, first page).
Levy is mostly no different, claiming that Grinde and Johansen have "A crazy quilt of inaccurate assessments." (603).
At best, to me, this appears as a Black Athena type of situation, where the claim, no matter how speculative or intriguing, has resulted in renewed interest in examining Native political theory, especially regarding its relationship to American political theory.
Later edit: Grinde and Johansen reply to critique.[10] Whether or not one agrees with the evaluation should not, I believe, dissuade inclusion, as it has been presented as a valid theory with some weight and discourse. Should it be in this article? I'm not sure. I would say 'no,' if pressed to decide. Maxx-♥ talk and coffee ☕ 13:41, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That said, this isn't necessarily a vote against potential inclusion. I think there has been enough writing on the subject to warrant a mention (and the subsequent rebuttals). However, I'm not sure if this is the best article for it. Maxx-♥ talk and coffee ☕ 13:44, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There are hundreds of reliable sources that cover the political and philosophical influences exerted on the Founders, through the works of John Locke, Montesquieu, William Blackstone, David Hume and the Enlightenment thinking of the eighteenth century altogether.These authors were often cited by name during the debates, drafting and ratification of the Constitution. Seeking other such political philosophers simply on the basis that they may be "non white" is not the way to approach matters Such an effort would only invoke due-weight issues if someone was actually able to dig up such a source in some reaching effort to make the point. If a reliable source can be presented to this effect we can entertain the idea, but no such example was offered in the first place.-- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:38, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Citations & Sources on the Enlightenment
  1. ^ Tanaka, 2010, p. 16
  2. ^ Branson, 1978, p. 235
  3. ^ Howe, 1989, p. 572
  4. ^ Bailyn, 1962, p. 182
  5. ^ Miller, Robert J. (2015). "American Indian Constitutions and Their Influence on the United States Constitution". Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society. 159 (1): 32–56. ISSN 0003-049X. JSTOR 24640169.
  6. ^ Grinde, Donald A.; Johansen, Bruce E. (2008). Exemplar of liberty: native America and the evolution of democracy. Native American politics series (2. print ed.). Los Angeles, Calif: American Indian Studies Center, Univ. of California. ISBN 978-0-935626-35-3.
  7. ^ Payne, Samuel B. (July 1996). "The Iroquois League, the Articles of Confederation, and the Constitution". The William and Mary Quarterly. 53 (3): 605. doi:10.2307/2947207.
  8. ^ Starna, William A.; Hamell, George R. (1996). "History and the Burden of Proof: The Case of Iroquois Influence on the U.S. Constitution". New York History. 77 (4): 427–452. ISSN 0146-437X.
  9. ^ Levy, Philip A. (1996). "Exemplars of Taking Liberties: The Iroquois Influence Thesis and the Problem of Evidence". The William and Mary Quarterly. 53 (3): 588–604. doi:10.2307/2947206. ISSN 0043-5597.
  10. ^ Grinde, Donald A.; Johansen, Bruce E. (1996). "Sauce for the Goose: Demand and Definitions for "Proof" Regarding the Iroquois and Democracy". The William and Mary Quarterly. 53 (3): 621–636. doi:10.2307/2947208. ISSN 0043-5597.
  • Branson, Roy (April–June 1979). "James Madison and the Scottish Enlightenment". Journal of the History of Ideas. 40 (2). University of Pennsylvania Press: 235–250. doi:10.2307/2709150. JSTOR 2709150.
  • Howe, Daniel Walker (July 1989). "Why the Scottish Enlightenment Was Useful to the Framers of the American Constitution". Comparative Studies in Society and History. 31 (3). Cambridge University Press: 572–587. JSTOR 178771.
  • Bailyn, Bernard (January 1962). "Political Experience and Enlightenment Ideas in Eighteenth-Century America". The American Historical Review. 67 (2). Oxford University Press: 339–351. doi:10.2307/1843427. JSTOR 1843427.
  • Tanaka, Hideo (June 2010). "The Scottish Enlightenment and Its Influence on the American Enlightenment". The Kyoto Economic Review. 79 (1). Kyoto University: 16–39. JSTOR 43213383.
  • Reck, Andrew J. (March 1991). "The Enlightenment in American Law I: The Declaration of Independence". The Review of Metaphysics. 44 (3). Philosophy Education Society Inc.: 549–573. JSTOR 20129058.
  • —— (June 1991). "The Enlightenment in American Law II: The Constitution". The Review of Metaphysics. 44 (4). Philosophy Education Society Inc.: 729–754. JSTOR 20129097.
  • —— (September 1991). "The Enlightenment in American Law II: The Bill of Rights". The Review of Metaphysics. 45 (1). Philosophy Education Society Inc.: 57–87. JSTOR 20129137.
Categories