"Except that the Republican majorities were carried by Middle Atlantic states like Pennsylvania and New Jersey..."

Well, Adams was a bad President, and extremely unpopular -- it's little surprise that people preferred Jefferson, the southern candidate, over him.

By and large it remained south versus north thereafter, though you're right that middle states often voted for the southern candidate.

Adding and then removing votes for women -- I don't see how that counts as a conraction of the franchise, if you're counting from before it was given to women in the first place.

"Or they would have left it out of the constitution because the constitution was subject to large popularly appointed ratification committees and not less numerous and more patrician state legislatures."

Right -- and whose choice was that? Oh yes, those pro-patrician founders.

and btw, it isn't being "rich" it is being disinterested. Being "rich" is one way to be disinterested, but the fact of the matter is that most of the virginian presidents were not rich. They were deep in debt but as part of slave holding class it was believed that their slaves and plantations provided them with the ability to grow their living and therefor be above the forces that would lead men to corruption.

Likewise Jefferson's dream for the country was an empire of yeoman farmers, because such yeoman, again, would be disinterested whether or not they were "rich."

@putin,

It's funny, most of your previous post seems to be railing against them as undemocratic because they sent the vote straight to popularly elected conventions instead of less popularly elected legislatures; and because they set up conventions solely to consider this one very important issue instead of making people trust, trustee-like, that people they elected when there was no sign such an important question would come would in fact make the decision they wished.

What happened in New York was two things. First, Hamilton's famous speeches, which converted (for example) the leading orator on the other side before he had even given his speech. But far more important, it became clear that New York was going to be out in the cold if it didn't ratify, and the prospect of that was enough to change nineteen minds.

I have no idea how they're supposed to be "undemocratic" because only 9 states had to ratify. The states, recall, viewed themselves as independent entities at that time, for most purposes, and the people in each state got to choose. Certainly there was extreme pressure placed on the outliers, notably Rhode Island, once enough had ratified.

"There's no gray area, it was illegal."

It's never illegal to get together in a room and write up a bunch of stuff and propose it to people as a new Constitution. And then the individual states chose to go ahead and call conventions to ratify it. If anybody did anything illegal, it was the states in replacing the Articles without unanimity, but I suspect that most theorists at the time would have vociferously argued for any state's right to leave the Articles unilaterally, so that was a gray area.

See?

c"o ratify the constitution was left up to an unprecedentedly popular process. You might say, well, the people AT the convention weren't elected. And that's true, but since it didn't go into effect unless it was ratified, the point is not that important. And you have to realize too that it's not like there was any hope of having a convention elected. "

There was no 'broader context'. The rich can use the excuse of protecting the national credit all they want, but they, like now, simply didn't want to pay taxes. The financial situation could have been fixed if merchants agreed to pay higher taxes. But instead they shifted almost all of the tax burden on small farmers while paying very little themselves, collecting "war debts" and debt to British merchants on their backs. Merchants demanded farmers pay them in hard cash for loans which they didn't have. When they couldn't pay, they seized farmer properties. And if anybody supported the Regulation movement against the suspension of habeas corpus, among other things, their property was deemed forfeited.

Alexander Hamilton, the person chiefly responsible for the policies you're referring to, was dirt poor his entire life long. He had to constantly borrow money from friends just to put food on the table. Very odd policies, then, if he was just trying to be financially self serving.

Actually that was a very Madisonian touch intended to make the Constitution the work of the "people" rather than the states in order to actually give the Federal Government power over delinquent state legislatures. Otherwise any state leg could just veto a federal action much like in the articles. It had little to do with the love for plebians.

@SC, the text of the Constitution, once ratified by any means, would have been enough to accomplish that. It's true that the founders would have thought it odd to ratify such a document ("We the people") by the states, but that's more related to political theory than the legal effect of the document, once ratified.

"It's funny, most of your previous post seems to be railing against them as undemocratic because they sent the vote straight to popularly elected conventions instead of less popularly elected legislatures; and because they set up conventions solely to consider this one very important issue instead of making people trust, trustee-like, that people they elected when there was no sign such an important question would come would in fact make the decision they wished."

Gee, for someone who makes a habit of always whining about me distorting your argument, you sure have no problem doing it.

No, I'm criticizing it for being anti-democratic because the Constitutional Convention was authorized by no one whatsover. It was held in secret, where even the minutes of the meetings were not published. It had no authority to come up with an entirely new governing document, only authority to produce amendments. The Congress never approved it. Nor did the requisite number of states according to the existing law. Force was used to impose a quorum by rounding up anti-federalists with the police. The people didn't vote for it by referendum anywhere. Only 15-25% of the population of the states voted for the delegates you say they had such a say in electing. And likely bribery and illegal coercion was used to get a huge number of hardened anti-federalists to suddenly ratify the constitution at the last minute.

But to you that's all a great example of how forward thinking the whole process was. Of course.

"Alexander Hamilton, the person chiefly responsible for the policies you're referring to, was dirt poor his entire life long. He had to constantly borrow money from friends just to put food on the table. Very odd policies, then, if he was just trying to be financially self serving. "

Except he styled himself an American aristocrat his entire life, was a driving force behind the society of the cincinnati, the most aristocratic body in the founding era, and, to his colleagues disbelief, proposed a hereditary branch of the legislature and even spoke openly about the Executive being an American king. His contemperaries, both in Dem-Republican and Federalist circles (Adams chief among them) were extremely suspicious of Hamilton's aristocratic leanings.

"@SC, the text of the Constitution, once ratified by any means, would have been enough to accomplish that. It's true that the founders would have thought it odd to ratify such a document ("We the people") by the states, but that's more related to political theory than the legal effect of the document, once ratified. "

Wrong. If the state legislatures ratified it then it would have been a product of the states and therefore repealable by the same states. Instead it was the work of State ratifying conventions, not the states for that specific reason

@putin,

Again, you're focusing too much on how the document was produced, which doesn't matter. I could write a constitution right now and put it online, saying, "If everybody in America signs this, it will become the law."

And you know what? If everybody signed it, it would. And there would be no problem whatsoever with my having no authority to do that. THEY have authority to do that. Anybody can propose whatever the heck they like. The process of writing is not the point. That's why you're wrong.

@SC, yes, Hamilton believed in an aristocracy; but it was not one of money or birth, rather of abilities. Most to the point for OUR argument, his friends, as you've already pointed out -- that would be the other founders -- were very suspicious of him for this tendency.

My point was very relevant to putin, though, who was busy claiming that it was all about the rich lording it over the poor (as usual).

@SC, I can't claim to have read (recently anyhow) the minutes and correspondence on that particular point (the reasons for ratifying conventions_), and I have no plans to look it up, so I'll have to suspend arguing on it unless you happen to want to look it up for me. You may be right that that was a chief motivation.

I believe, although i didn't read Putin's posts thoroughly, It was not the rich and the poor but the creditors and the debtors. Hamilton was a creditor. The Constitution was a major boon to creditors.

read Jack Rackove "Original Meanings"

"but I suspect that most theorists at the time would have vociferously argued for any state's right to leave the Articles unilaterally, so that was a gray area."

Recall that the full name of the Articles of Confederation included the phrase "Perpetual Union". Kinda hard to argue any state had the right to leave unilaterally. Kinda hard to believe that there would have been such a vociferous debate if people actually thought secession was allowed if they didn't like the new law.

"It's never illegal to get together in a room and write up a bunch of stuff and propose it to people as a new Constitution."

Really, it's never illegal to secretly hatch a plot to overthrow the government when the convention was explicitly authorized to write amendments to the existing law? The resolutions which called for the Constitutional Convention explicitly said they were being sent to amend the law and report back these changes for Congressional approval, which never occurred. Congress passed a resolution on On February 21, 1787 which said the Convention was to make revisions. It wasn't some random meeting, it was an explicitly mandated Constitutional Convention called together for the purpose of revising existing law. The reason why the thing was so secretive to begin with because these people knew precisely what they were doing and that it was not aboveboard.

His specific point had just been about the rich. I would be most surprised to learn that Hamilton was a creditor, unless he had held on to his war bonds. Do you have a source for this? In any case, if he did it was not a very big boon to him.

Ah, SC, you beat me to the source request (if that is on Hamilton's owning debt?)

Yes, putin, I'm aware of why the convention was called, but yes, I will say again that it is never illegal to get together, no matter why you originally got together, and write a constitution.

As for why it was so secretive -- well, there were a lot of people who would have gotten very upset if they had known what was going on. No mystery there. Nobody would have been jailed, though.

"Again, you're focusing too much on how the document was produced, which doesn't matter."

Yes it does matter. It matters if you want to sit here and claim the process was 'democratic'. Imagine if today some secretive cabal of 50 rich white men, after being appointed for the purpose of doing one very specific thing, came back and said that they wrote a new document that will be the foundation of the entire country's law, and that in order for it to be approved we can simply order what the existing law says and have an arbitrary number of state conventions approve it. Nobody would put up with it, let alone sniff the throne of all these putschists years later. The people, Congress, and Congressional authority were all ignored. You think that's "democracy" and the "rule of law". Naturally.

I didn't say rich, I said creditors, which he even admitted was a big reason for the convention.

"Yes, putin, I'm aware of why the convention was called, but yes, I will say again that it is never illegal to get together, no matter why you originally got together, and write a constitution."

Really, so there's no such thing as exceeding one's mandate? And you're the fucking liberal (classical) between the two of us? Jesus. So the subcommittee on the environment can go ahead and hold a secret meeting to write a new constitution, arbitrarily change the rules for adoption of said constitution, and there's nothing illegal about that? Ok, hoss.

The people were not ignored, putin. That is an extraordinary claim.

Now, if that happened today, the response would vary based on the context, but that's very interesting, isn't it? You say "Nobody would put up with it." But they did put up with it. Even in the articles of the day, a little ink was spilled decrying the whole process (by Patrick Henry, most notably), but mostly people went to the merits of the document. I think an argument could and should be made that by the very fact that people DID put up with it, and did in fact ratify it, they were not affronted by the process, and did not consider it a usurpation of their power.

"I didn't say rich, I said creditors, which he even admitted was a big reason for the convention."

Indeed:

"There was no 'broader context'. The rich can use the excuse of protecting the national credit all they want, but they, like now, simply didn't want to pay taxes. The financial situation could have been fixed if merchants agreed to pay higher taxes. But instead they shifted almost all of the tax burden on small farmers while paying very little themselves, collecting "war debts" and debt to British merchants on their backs. Merchants demanded farmers pay them in hard cash for loans which they didn't have. When they couldn't pay, they seized farmer properties. And if anybody supported the Regulation movement against the suspension of habeas corpus, among other things, their property was deemed forfeited."

" I think an argument could and should be made that by the very fact that people DID put up with it, and did in fact ratify it, they were not affronted by the process, and did not consider it a usurpation of their power."

I think that's a narrow, top-down view of history that ignores the fact that resistance occurred, notably the Whiskey Rebellion, and people then learned that the new government would use massive militias to put down any resistance.

"That is an extraordinary claim."

What an argument! Thanks for the total lack of substantiation and refusal to engage with the points I made about how ordinary citizens did not vote for this document, few participated in elections for the ratifying conventions and in some cases elections did not occur at all, and the elected representation in congress was completely sidestepped.

"Indeed:"

I said that the constitution was made for the purpose of collecting debts. Sort of hard to be a creditor if you're not well off. Anyway, all of that is true.

So first of all, congressmen were not elected under the Articles of Confederation. They were chosen by the legislatures, one per state regardless of population. It would be hard to be substantially less democratic. (The Senate was similar until the 17th amendment, as you no doubt know).

Second, the whiskey rebellion was AFTER the ratification. I was talking about people's response before ratification. I assumed you were too when you said "nobody would stand for it" if it happened today. Right enough, if you take umbrage at how a new government is being set up, it is generally best to object _before_ it is in place and has a militia.

As for the "extraordinary claim," I have already given the reasons it is extraordinary, which is why I did not repeat them. The ratification conventions that were held for the Constitution were, for all their flaws, one of the most broadly democratic things that had happened on the face of the earth to that time, certainly in such a large country. (Switzerland, of course, like some ancient Greek city-states, was a direct democracy; these were, however, far smaller).

For sources, I'll have to refer you to Akhil Amar's "America's Constitution: A Biography." I left my copy at home, sadly, so I can't quote it to you. He discusses these issues in quite a lot of detail.

"Sort of hard to be a creditor if you're not well off. Anyway, all of that is true."

Not if there's a government that is not paying its debts. Actually, there were a great many such creditors after the revolution. Many of them sold their debt to speculators, but if you didn't, or before you did, you were a creditor (and poor). But I'm sure you're familiar with all this.

Oh, and -- that may or may not be all true, but it remains that Alexander Hamilton, the person responsible for THOSE policies, was poor. And that, for THOSE policies, you were speaking of the rich, not the creditors.