In general , the first wave of state consitutions the came out of the American Revolution were examples of ?

Question

A. overreaction

B. obedience

C. uniformity

D. aristocracy

Answer 1

~E.  Bombastic Rhetoric.  Each colony already had a charter.  During the War for Colonial Independence (it was hardly a revolution)  the constitutions that were spawned were largely plagiarized versions of British law, tempered by stuff stolen from the Iroquois confederation.  The founding fathers were traitors and treasonous terrorists, but as original political thinkers and philosophers, they were measured and found sorely lacking.

KG:  check my reply to you comment on the War for Southern Independence to see why it was a war of aggression by an invading nation into the realm of an independent sovereign (nation) state.  A revolution, if you check YOUR dictionary, is the overthrow of a government from within; a forcible substitution of rulers or ruling class; seizure of state power by a subject class.  Now, I know I slept through some high school history classes and I cut a few sessions of my graduate seminars but even so, I think that if the colonial rebels had overthrown George III and Parliament, it would have been mentioned more than once.  The colonial rebellion had nothing whatsoever to do with the overthrow of the British government.  Ergo, there was no revolution.  The was a rebellion and a War for Colonial Independence.   In a sense it was a civil war, but really it was a war for separation.   Using a term improperly, or even putting caps at the front (as in Civil War or Revolution) doesn't change the definition, the rules of logic or proper usage of language.

Surely you don't dispute that the 'American Patriots' were rebels and traitors.  Only 1/3 of the colonists ever supported the cause for independence.  One third remained loyal and 1/3 never chose sides.  Ben Franklin said of the Declaration of Independence, "Now we shall hang together or we shall hang separately".  If he and his compatriots can accuse themselves of treason, why would I question their honesty - especially given the obvious truth of the self-accusation.

If you know anything of the "Intolerable Acts" the cost of the Seven Years War (particularly the relatively minor and insignificant American theater known here as the French and Indian War) and the colonial resistance to picking up a small part of the tab, if you know anything of the fortunes made by the likes of Sam Adams and John Hancock, among others of similar fame, made by smuggling, tax evasion and the illicit trade with Crown enemies and how Parliament finally decided to try to control it, if you know how much wealth was at stake when Parliament curtailed trade (especially in war materials)  between the colonies and nations with whom the British (and therefore the colonies) were at war and if you know anything of the freedom, personal liberty and independence of the British in the eighteenth century (probably the 'freest' people enjoying the most personal liberty since classical Athens) then you know the war was about economics and not oppression.  The state delegations refused to ratify the constitution or take it home to present it to state conventions until it was guaranteed that The Bill of Rights would be amended to it.  The Bill of Rights came directly from English precedent.  I stand by what I said, and I said it in provocative language to provoke thought, or at least response.

  

As to the comments about the constitutions, there was nothing new in any of them.  Many of the ideas go all the way back to Plato and beyond.  The founding fathers acknowledge that they were borrowing for old, tried and true sources - especially the English Bill of Rights.  The early charters were written for them by Englishmen and the charters found their way into the constitutions.  John Locke himself wrote the Carolina Constitutions (and if you read them, you will understand that Locke would NOT have been in favor of the rebellion even though the Committee of Five quoted him extensively in the Declaration of Independence (which Jefferson said contained no new ideas or ideals or philosophical thought.  If he can say it, and I acknowledge him to be among the most brilliant minds of the last millennium, who am I to question him?  Of course, prior to 1783 and the Treaty of Paris, any attempt to draft a state or federal constitution (or the Articles of Confederation) were exercises in futility since until the British granted independence in the treaty, the colonies remained Crown territory (albeit in rebellion - at least by the 1/3 who supported the cause), governed by Parliament.

I was blessed with two or three teachers in high school and a few more during my seven years in college and grad school.  They taught me how to think and to question everything and to research (and to want to research) and learn.  That is a talent that is sorely lacking today, what with everyone parroting the party line without thought.  I like to look at things from another perspective or six, and then try to analyze what was actually being done and said in the context of the past rather than to look at it from a contemporary point of view through a telescope distorted by the propaganda and rhetoric of succeeding centuries.  For example, one can't understand the states rights issues of 1860 if one does not realize and understand that colonies each became a free and independent nation-state in 1783 and never surrendered that independence when they acceded to the constitution in 1789.  The USA was NOT a single nation before 1865 and the founding fathers never intended that it be one.  It was a confederation of independent nations, united for the common good with a weak central government and substantial autonomy reserved to the several states.   That is why the delineated powers of the federal government were so limited and so few and why all other powers were reserved to the states separately.  If you don't read and question and just listen to the post "Civil War" party line, you would never know what came before and what was intended to have been created in 1787/89.

Is my stated interpretation my actual belief?  I'll never tell.  That is irrelevant.  Is my interpretation logical and accurate in accordance with the "facts" and the "truth"?  Of course, depending on one's point of view.  Are there other, equally logical correct interpretations?  There d**n well better be or we are doomed as a civilization and a race.  That, after all, is the crux and object of education and independent thought.

However, I enjoy the feedback.  Maybe I do make people think, and that, after all, is the highest goal to which a teacher can aspire.  By all means, don't apologize for the "rant".  Isn't  the free and unfettered intercourse of ideas one of the things for which our ancestors fought and died?  I'd just as soon believe they don't go through all that foolishness for nothing.