[gutzmank]

“PhD Gutzman?” I’ve never heard that one before.

The best book on the Stamp Act Crisis is the Morgans’. The best book of primary sources is Jack Greene’s. The best book on the Imperial Crisis generally is Greene’s Peripheries and Center. There are books on basically every sub-topic in that general area, including my own Virginia’s American Revolution, which is about the revolutionaries’ remaking of Virginia society. Care to be more specific?

[gutzmank]

You’re welcome.

[gutzmank]

There actually was a debate over this in Virginia at the time. Some said Virginia was in a state of nature (Patrick Henry was among them), and some said it wasn’t (this was Jefferson’s position). In general, the states kept their colonial systems, merely substituting loyalty to the state for loyalty to the king. This was what Jefferson had forecast in A Summary View of the Rights of British America, which was built on the foundation of his cousin Richard Bland’s account of the settlement of the North American colonies; key was the claim of a natural right to emigrate.

[gutzmank]

I recently published a piece on this:

http://nomocracyinpolitics.com/2014/10/15/from-james-madisons-republic-to-anthony-kennedys-by-kevin-r-c-gutzman/

[gutzmank]

I agree with Prof. McClanahan, but would add two points of clarification:

1) not only could the British king launch hostilities, but he could unilaterally declare war and conclude treaties; and

2) the worst example of Congress’s punting is the War Powers Resolution, which concedes that the president can wage offensive war for several weeks prior to securing congressional authorization. In that, it is unconstitutional, as Prof. McClanahan says.

[gutzmank]

The idea of the Declaration of Independence as a mission statement originated not with the Straussians, but with black abolitionists during the Revolution. In general, no one bought the idea at the time; indeed, you will search in vain for anyone having said that during the ratification campaigns.

As to the absence of the idea that power comes from the people from the Constitution, I suggest that you re-read Articles V and VII with the fact that “states” refers to “the sovereign people of each state” in mind. Then you’ll see that the Constitution is actually based on this idea.

[gutzmank]

You’re welcome, of course!

[gutzmank]

The debt to Englishmen was PRE-WAR debt to Englishmen. The Treaty of Paris of 1783, which ended the war, stipulated that American courts must be open to British creditors desirous of recouping their pre-war debts; this provision was only haltingly fulfilled after the treaty’s ratification.

[gutzmank]

You’ll get no argument from me.

Nowadays, our Hamiltonians tend to say that it doesn’t much matter what the people consented to (Thurgood Marshall), that no one can tell what the Ratifiers understood the Constitution to mean (William Brennan), that although the Federalists said one thing consistently during the ratification struggle, a reasonable , uninformed bystander might have understood particular language to mean something else (Antonin Scalia), or that a democratic society would function better if we took the Constitution to mean x (Stephen Breyer).

[gutzmank]

Could you please tell me specifically what you’re talking about?

[gutzmank]

You’re saying that the outcomes at Quatre Bras and Ligny were scripted too? Was Ney’s execution pre-ordained? Blucher’s men showed up just in time due to the Secret Plan? Grouchy didn’t make it because he was in on the scam?

There’s implausible, and then there’s this theory.

[gutzmank]

Of course he knew it. I think he was a usurper: he said one thing during the ratification contest, then behaved as if the Constitution meant another once it had gone into effect.

[gutzmank]

Neither country has had slavery for well over a century now, so I don’t understand your question.

[gutzmank]

You’re assuming that both men were approaching the Constitution with good faith–with an intention to exercise only the power the Constitution was supposed to grant the government. There is no reason to believe that Hamilton behaved that way.

Hamilton said in The Federalist that the Federal Government would have a few defined powers. Once he was secretary of the treasury, he seems not to have found any way in which those powers were few or defined.

This isn’t surprising. In fact, much of the discussion in the ratification contest was over the likelihood that federal officials would grab at more power than the Federalists were saying the Constitution was going to give them. The Preamble to the Bill of Rights, which you can find in the Appendix to Tom Woods’ and my Who Killed the Constitution?, says that was the reason for the Bill of Rights.

[gutzmank]

You’re welcome.

[Author]

Posts