Talk:Constitution of the United States/Archive 15

Archive 10

←

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

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.

• Joseph Morton, p. 225: The one part of the Constitution that was written solely by Morris was the Preamble, which made it clear that it was "We the people of the United States," not the states, that established "this Constitution for the United States of America."
• Richard R. Beeman, p. 348: The preamble in the Committee of Detail report suggested that it was the people, acting through the agency of their respective states, who possessed sovereign power.
• Akhil Reed Amar, p. 308: Article VII, the Philadelphia Constitution’s closing sentence, elaborated its opening words by specifying how "We the People of the United States" would in actual fact ordain and establish the Constitution—namely, via the ratifications of nine or more state "Conventions."
• Calvin C. Jillson, p. 45: The Preamble declares the Constitution to be an act of the sovereign people of the United States to secure the public purposes that they held most dear. The Articles of Confederation had been an agreement among the states, whereas the Constitution was an act of the people.
• Pauline Maier, p. 107: Whitehill also objected to the Constitution's opening words, "We the People," which he said showed that the Constitution destroyed "the old foundation of the Union"—a confederation of states—and built on its ruins "a new unwieldy system of consolidated empire" that was "designed to abolish the independence and sovereignty of the states."
• Mortimore Jerome Adler, p. 74: Edmund Pendleton, for ratification, answered him (Patrick Henry): "But an objection is made to the form: the expression 'We, the people' is thought improper. Permit me to ask the gentleman who made this objection, who but the people can delegate powers? Who but the people have a right to form government? The expression is a common one, and a favorite one with me....If the objection be that the Union ought to be not of the people but of the state governments, then I think the choice of the former very happy and proper. What have the state governments to do with it? Were they to determine, the people would not in that case be the judges upon what terms it was adopted."

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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. 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. 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.

References
References

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)

"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)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)

• 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)

  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)

  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. 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. 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)

  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)

References

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)

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)

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)

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)

Continuing the same arguments

• Pinging editors involved in the RfC, per WP: Appropriate notification

@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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• 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 [1] (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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

"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)

Anytime? Levivich (talk) 04:04, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

This was the time. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:07, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

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)

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 [2] :-P Levivich (talk) 05:32, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

• Until World War II Beard, though often contested, reigned. Since World War II, however, historians have launched strong challenges at Beard's interpretation. Although they often disagreed in their interpretations of the Constitution, they all agreed that Beard's study did not offer a satisfactory explanation of the document.

  Couvares, Francis G.; Saxton, Martha (2000) Interpretations of American History Vol. I (p. 180)

• Thus, the current historical consensus is that Beard's thrust -his focus on the framers as creating a capitalist order primarily to protect their own interests- is incorrect.

  Feldman, Stephen M. (2014) The Interpretation of Constitutional History, or Charles Beard Becomes a Fortuneteller (with an Emphasis on Free Expression) (p. 325)

• Although there are exceptions to such generalizations, historians argue that throughout the years following the war, American intellectuals rejected Karl Marx, Charles Beard, the far left, and progressive historiography. Instead, the post-war years witnessed the rise of "consensus" intellectual scholarship [...] As post-war intellectuals moved away from Marx and the left, American historians, in general, dismissed Charles Beard and progressive historiography.

  Fogo, Bradley J. (1996) William Appleman Williams: Progressive, consensus, New Left historian (p. 32 & 36)

• 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.

  Kloppenberg, James T. (2004) Pragmatism and the Practice of History: From Turner and Du Bois to Today

• Beard’s interpretation of the writing of the federal Constitution, for example, has been convincingly debunked, and Williams’s conspiratorial foreign policy theories are eccentric. Hofstadter and others successfully argued that there was much more consensus in American politics than Beard and his followers could brook.

  Lauck, Jon (2010) The "Interior Tradition" in American History: A Review Essay (p. 91)

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)

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)

• @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)

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)

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)

• 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)

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)

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)

" 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)

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).

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)

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)

Thanks. Good work. Allreet (talk) 09:23, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

@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)

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)

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)

• Discussion continued on Talk:Bibliography of the United States Constitution. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:44, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

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:

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Freoh, do you have a current proposed revision to the article? —DIYeditor (talk) 08:37, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

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 [3]. 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, but I have provided six additional sources estimating that less than 3% of the American population voted in favor of ratification, 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)

References

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)

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)

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)

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. 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

A summary of the ongoing dispute

JeffUK asked at Wikipedia:Closure requests § Talk:Constitution of the United States/Archive 15#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. 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. 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.

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

• The people is imprecise. As I tried to explain in § Clarification about disagreement and vagueness, this puffery is ambiguous about which people are included. Women? Indigenous people? Slaves? It certainly meant something different to the framers than it does to modern Wikipedia readers.
• As Levivich pointed out in § A brief survey of the available scholarship, the article prioritizes a nationalist point of view in stating that the people ... were the source of the government's legitimacy. This is a very subjective statement, and many prominent and reputable sources disagree. Allreet has described his sources as mainstream and those that disagree as fringe, but has not provided evidence. In § RfC about whether to specify to whom the Constitution refers when it discusses the People, protections, and liberty, I suggested balancing this viewpoint with voting statistics, but encountered some resistance and did not reach a consensus.
• As Jim.henderson mentioned in § Neutrality issues in § Preamble, the preamble is relatively short and this article is relatively long. I think that this would be a good place to cut some material, especially because much of it is redundant with the full text of the preamble already in the article.

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

@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)

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)