Was the Constitutional Convention really a Coup?

[James972]

Uh....no. No, it was not a "coup". Claiming something like that is absolutely idiotic; if it was a coup there wouldn't have been any way for "conservatives" to fight back anyway.

what??? one can always resist a coup!!!

 

[James972]

The founders realized that the Articles simply didn't work.

if that was true they would have simply amended the Articles any way they wanted as per the process contained in the Articles. Instead they went around the existing govt to create a big central got.

 

[Tigerace117]

what??? one can always resist a coup!!!

Not when one is dead, and the “conservatives” wouldn’t have had the power to resist the usual round up of dissidents after a coup.....unless, of course, no such thing happened.

 

[Tigerace117]

if that was true they would have simply amended the Articles any way they wanted as per the process contained in the Articles. Instead they went around the existing govt to create a big central got.

The entire framework of the articles was unworkable. They had to scrap the whole thing and stop over, not just put a band-aid on it.

 

[itsforthekids]

It mostly was it seems. The Articles had been a huge success at limiting central govt. They contained amendment procedures, to amend the Articles, but every time the liberals tried to use them to expand the power of the central govt they failed. That is when they finally gave up and went outside the ratification process and subversively called their own convention. Who showed up? Liberals who wanted to expand the power of central govt. As soon as the conservatives saw how dangerous the new Constitution was [ Jefferson and Madison, mostly] they formed the Republican Party in 1792 to fight against liberal big govt, and Republicans have been carrying on the battle ever since.

Seriously, that may be the dumbest thing I've ever read.

 

[Lethargic Aptitude]

a coup to restart with a bigger central govt and thus the beginning of our downfall- right?

No, still not a coup and I dont care about your anti American opinions.

 

[JimHackerMP]

Thermodorian reaction was to terror. America was doing great under Articles, there was terror and no interest even in amending Articles.
Do you understand now?

"Thermidorian Reaction" is also a term that means when a Revolution is uncontrolled (as the 1780s was a tumultuous decade of infighting and spinning our political wheels), conservatives, or even moderates, seize power and turn things back a bit. It does't have to refer specifically to the French Revolution. America was not doing GREAT under the articles. That's an absurd position. Congress (the Confederation Congress) appointed the delegates to the convention with the instructions to revise the Articles, to make them workable. If it was a "coup" as you allege, then they would not have appointed delegates who ended up walking out when they became dissatisfied with the prospect of scrapping the articles and wholesale replacing them.

A coup, according to Edward Luttwak, is the infiltration of a small but critical segment of the state apparatus, which is then used to displace the government from its control of the remainder. (By force, not by discussion in a convention). Your definition is therefore wrong.

What you could say is that the Convention exceeded its instructions. Everybody knows that the Articles were unworkable. A few more years, it was feared, and the United States would have dissolved into several regional confederacies. Were you sleeping during high school civics class?

 

[Terryj]

if that was true they would have simply amended the Articles any way they wanted as per the process contained in the Articles. Instead they went around the existing govt to create a big central got.

James, I suggest you read Justice Joseph Story's commentary on the Articles of Confederation, you might learn something. The Articles of Confederation were a hap hazard attempt of forming a central government and by 1787 it was really apparent as to the downfalls of these articles. This was why a Constitutional Convention was called, the United States was in debt, the central government had no power at all and the States were bickering between themselves, something had to be done to fix this issue before the whole thing collapsed.

 

[James972]

James, I suggest you read Justice Joseph Story's commentary on the Articles of Confederation, you might learn something. The Articles of Confederation were a hap hazard attempt of forming a central government and by 1787 it was really apparent as to the downfalls of these articles. This was why a Constitutional Convention was called, the United States was in debt, the central government had no power at all and the States were bickering between themselves, something had to be done to fix this issue before the whole thing collapsed.

absurd of course, Articles were fine which is why they could not get any support to Amend them as prescribed by the Articles, why founders went way beyond their mandate with Constitution, and , most importantly, why they had to completely lie get the Constitution ratified. Now do you understand?

 

[James972]

Not when one is dead, and the “conservatives” wouldn’t have had the power to resist the usual round up of dissidents after a coup.....unless, of course, no such thing happened.

don't be silly a coup does not have to be violent. The Founders tricked the American people with huge lies and got the Constitution ratified. Now do you understand?

 

[James972]

The entire framework of the articles was unworkable. .

freedom from central govt is unworkable only if you are a libcommie

 

[James972]

. They had to scrap the whole thing and stop over, not just put a band-aid on it.

if they had to why was it so necessary to tell the biggest lies to get Constitution passed??

 

[James972]

Seriously, that may be the dumbest thing I've ever read.

Seriously, that may be the smartest thing you've ever read.

 

[James972]

No, still not a coup

why not a coup??

a notable or successful stroke or move.
"it was a major coup to get such a prestigious contract"
synonyms: success, triumph, feat, accomplishment, achievement, scoop, master stroke, stroke of genius
"a major publishing coup"

 

[James972]

" Congress (the Confederation Congress) appointed the delegates to the convention with the instructions to revise the Articles,

correct!! and rather than revise them they scrapped them altogether and then told huge huge lies to get their Constitution passed in perhaps the greatest coup in world history!


Madison ,Federalist #40
"The truth is, that the great principles of the Constitution proposed by the convention may be considered less as absolutely new, than as the expansion of principles which are found in the Articles of Confederation" The Constitution was supposed to simply be an extension of the Virginia Compact and the Annapolis Convention which were primarily designed to promote free trade among the states.

:
Articles worked well which is why most supported it. It won the Revolution and secured a
peace treaty with land all the way to Mississipi, state govts were established, voting franchise greatly extended, freguent elections, separation of church and state, beginning of abilition of slavery in northern states, expansion of education and literacy, establishment of State Bills of Rights, patterns of expansion with NW Ordinances established, ( all westen land to Fed was to be divideded and sold for $1 per acre, self rule, and admission to union when population was 60,000, freedom of worship, trial by jury, no slavery, trade opened with Europe and Asia, loans secured to US from foreign powers.

Additionally, many did not even attend Constitutional convention like Jefferson Adams Henry, and only 33 of 59 who did attend signed it.

 

[James972]

"
A coup, according to Edward Luttwak, is the infiltration of a small but critical segment of the state apparatus, which is then used to displace the government from its control of the remainder. (By force, not by discussion in a convention). Your definition is therefore wrong.

??? it was exactly a coup by that definition which is why we are all very afraid to have a Constitutional convention today just to add an amendment. Founders were liars who ignored their mandate and then told huge lies to get their Constitution passed.

 

[James972]

Everybody knows that the Articles were unworkable.

if everybody knows it why did they not have a mandate for a new Constitution and why did they have to tell such huge lies to get it passed to replace the beloved Articles of Confederation? If they knew it why did so few at the convention sign the Constitution and why did so many vote against ratification? You don't get very far when you parrot liberal history. Sorry to rock your world.

 

[cabse5]

totally wrong of course!! Constitution barely passed because most thought Articles were superior because they limited liberal govt more . Further, Constitution only passed when anti-federalists insisted on Bill of Rights to further limit big liberal govt. Most importantly, 200 years later we know they were right. The Constitution failed to limits govt power as communists like Sanders Obama Warren stand poised to take over our country.

Don't forget to add Washington in that list of politicians who wanted a strong executive branch.

 

[James972]

Don't forget to add Washington in that list of politicians who wanted a strong executive branch.

Washington was a Federalist; his party was driven out of existence as soon as the country was formed because he wanted a strong central govt !

 

[Terryj]

absurd of course, Articles were fine which is why they could not get any support to Amend them as prescribed by the Articles, why founders went way beyond their mandate with Constitution, and , most importantly, why they had to completely lie get the Constitution ratified. Now do you understand?

James, I think it is you that doesn't understand, the Articles were not fine when it came to the central government. There was no way for the central government to tax, there was no judicial branch to speak of, and the government had no way to enforce it's laws, if they wanted a central government something had to be done. The States wanted a central government to keep the Union in tact, however, the States were acting as if each one of them were sovereign nations engaging in their own trade, their own currency and their own treaties, yet, they wanted the central government to foot the bill for the debt each State incurred during the war. They couldn't get any support to amend any Articles because the AoC required 100% support from the States to amend it and it seemed that this was not going to happen. This is why to amend the current Constitution it only take 2/3rds of the States, problem solved. Now do you understand?

 

[Tigerace117]

don't be silly a coup does not have to be violent. The Founders tricked the American people with huge lies and got the Constitution ratified. Now do you understand?

Lol buddy a coup pretty much by definition is violent.

No, the American people understood that things were working just as much as the founders did. That’s another part of why we had start over in the first place.

 

[Tigerace117]

freedom from central govt is unworkable only if you are a libcommie

*cough cough Somalia

Without the reworking to create a goverment that had some actual power there wouldn’t be a United States today.

 

[Tigerace117]

if they had to why was it so necessary to tell the biggest lies to get Constitution passed??

They didn’t “have to tell the biggest lies”. That’s a fairy tale you made up.

 

[Lethargic Aptitude]

why not a coup??

a notable or successful stroke or move.
"it was a major coup to get such a prestigious contract"
synonyms: success, triumph, feat, accomplishment, achievement, scoop, master stroke, stroke of genius
"a major publishing coup"

Is that really the definition that you were using?

It really sounded like you were using this one: a sudden, violent, and illegal seizure of power from a government.
"he was overthrown in an army coup"
synonyms: seizure of power, coup d'état, putsch, overthrow, takeover, deposition;

I think that you were using the 1st definition and now are backpedaling. I mean just reading your OP the second definition makes no sense.

 

[Terryj]

correct!! and rather than revise them they scrapped them altogether and then told huge huge lies to get their Constitution passed in perhaps the greatest coup in world history!


Madison ,Federalist #40
"The truth is, that the great principles of the Constitution proposed by the convention may be considered less as absolutely new, than as the expansion of principles which are found in the Articles of Confederation" The Constitution was supposed to simply be an extension of the Virginia Compact and the Annapolis Convention which were primarily designed to promote free trade among the states.

:
Articles worked well which is why most supported it. It won the Revolution and secured a
peace treaty with land all the way to Mississipi, state govts were established, voting franchise greatly extended, freguent elections, separation of church and state, beginning of abilition of slavery in northern states, expansion of education and literacy, establishment of State Bills of Rights, patterns of expansion with NW Ordinances established, ( all westen land to Fed was to be divideded and sold for $1 per acre, self rule, and admission to union when population was 60,000, freedom of worship, trial by jury, no slavery, trade opened with Europe and Asia, loans secured to US from foreign powers.

Additionally, many did not even attend Constitutional convention like Jefferson Adams Henry, and only 33 of 59 who did attend signed it.

Jefferson didn't attend because he was in France as the foreign minister in France, Adams didn't attend because he was the foreign minister in Great Britain and was in GB at the time. The only State that didn't send any delegates was Rhode Island, why, Rhode Island was afraid it would lose it power as a State, due to being the smallest State.