Fifteenth Postings of Gravitas

The following list of titles and accompanying dates refers to past postings on the blog, Gravitas: A Voice for Civics Education, that have been deleted.  After each title and date, the entries below include the first paragraph of each respective posting.  If you care to receive a copy of a particular posting, send your request via email to gravitascivics@gmail.com .  One posting per request.

141 AT THE BEGINNING: MAYFLOWER COMPACT

(January 13, 2012)

In the last series of postings, I have, using Meehan's standards for evaluating social science theories and models, shared a set of conclusions that critically looks at the viability of the traditional federalist model. That model of governance and politics was dominant during the founding of the nation. I have, several times in this blog, made this claim for the federalist construct and, a while back, posted a short historical analysis that used expert opinion supporting this claim. Starting with this posting, I want to accomplish two goals: critique traditional federalism as to its isomorphism (its one to one account of what it is describing and explaining) and provide documented evidence to support the claim of its prominence during those early years. To do this, I am utilizing the work of one of our nation's top constitutional scholars, Donald S. Lutz of the University of Houston (A set of chapters in the book, Roots of the Republic: American Founding Documents Interpreted, written by Donald Lutz. The book is edited by Stephen L. Schechter.).

142 FIRST CONSTITUTION: FUNDAMENTAL ORDERS OF CONNECTICUT

(January 16, 2012)

In the last posting of this blog, I offered the Mayflower Compact as evidence supporting the claim that the founding of the nation was based on federalist principles. In reviewing that covenant, I pointed out some of the basic ideas that were instrumental in our original conceptions of how we should govern ourselves. Those principles included formation of a union based on consent of the governed a priori to actual governance, formulation of a formal agreement based on a covenant (a promise which called on God as witness to the agreement), and an integral commitment to equality – by the way, before any commitment to individuality or individual rights. I call this a federalist approach because the members of that colony off the Massachusetts Bay federated themselves to each other to, one, meet the challenges of a hostile environment and, two, to promote, as they saw it, the will of God.

143 JOHN ADAMS AS POLITICAL COUNSULTANT

(January 20, 2012)

I am in the midst of posting a series of document reviews from early American history that, one, supports the claim that federalist thought functioned as the prevailing construct of government and politics at the beginning of our nation and, two, provides evidence as to the isomorphic (one to one) quality of the federalism construct. I am using the work of Donald Lutz to assist in this analysis. A look at the expressed ideals around the time of the American Revolution, for example, will demonstrate how this foundational perspective survived and was instrumental in drawing up the constitutional framework of the nation. In his Thoughts on Government, 1776, John Adams picked up on the moral bent of federalism to justify his proposed political arrangements:

We ought to consider, what is the end of government, before we determine which is the best form. Upon this point all speculative politicians will agree, that the happiness of society is the end of government, as all Divines and moral Philosophers will agree that the happiness of the individual is the end of man. From this principle it will follow, that the form of government, which communicates ease, comfort, security, or in one word happiness to the greatest number of persons, and in the greatest degree, is the best.

… If there is a form of government then, whose principle and foundation is virtue, will not every sober man acknowledge it better calculated to promote the general happiness than any other form? [Adams, J. (1776). Thoughts on government. Retrieved from the Internet: http://presspubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/ v1ch4s5.html . Retrieval on 1/18/12. Let me note that the language that Adams uses reminds one of utilitarian views of morality; I do not believe he was formally making such an argument.]

144 FEDERALIST VALUES OF THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE

(January 23, 2012)

Documents from the past are telling sources of evidence. They are often the product of reflected efforts; those who write them give them a great deal of thought. They are not always honest renditions of people's feelings or beliefs, but those who produce them are usually not haphazard in their labor. There is probably no better example of serious effort than what went into the writing of our Declaration of Independence. In the most recent postings of this blog, I have been reviewing a series of documents from our early national history in order to achieve two goals: to provide evidence that what I am calling traditional federalism was the prevailing mental construct of the founding of this nation and that, in so doing, provide a critique of that construct using the standards provided by Eugene Meehan (Meehan, E. J. (1969). Explanations in social science: A system paradigm. Homewood, IL: The Dorsey Press.). The work of Donald Lutz (A set of chapters in the book, Roots of the Republic: American Founding Documents Interpreted, written by Donald Lutz. The book is edited by Stephen L. Schechter.) has been helpful in these reviews.

145 MORE VALUES CONTAINED IN THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE

(January 27, 2012)

In my last posting, I began a presentation of the evidential role that the Declaration of Independence – its text – plays in making the case that federalism was the main theoretical construct of the founding fathers. It does this, foremost, by being a covenant in which the colonies joined to claim their collective independence from Britain. In this posting, I want to continue in this vein.

146 THE ARTICLES LED TO OUR US CONSTITUTION

(January 30, 2012)

If you have been following this blog of late, you know that I have been reviewing early American documents. To date, I have reviewed the Mayflower Compact, the Fundamental Orders of Connecticut, and the Declaration of Independence among others. I have done this for two reasons. One, I wanted to use the documents as evidence to support the claim that the federalist construct was the prevalent theoretical construct of the founding fathers and, two, to offer a critique of this construct as to its isomorphism. I am particularly interested in the traditional form of the construct, traditional federalism, as I will offer a more updated version of the construct – a version I will argue is more suitable for the study of civics in our contemporary classrooms.

147 A SHORT WORD ON CONDUCIVENESS

(February 3, 2012)

Let me continue my critical view of the traditional federalism construct. Ultimately, I am interested in the construct as a foundational theoretical approach for the study of civics. But to be a viable approach for classroom instruction, the construct must first be viable as a view of government and politics. Since the posting of December 30, I have been using Eugene Meehan's criteria for evaluating social science theories and models.¹ To date, I have found the traditional federalism construct to be comprehensive, valid and complete, corresponding to the realities it describes and explains, consistent, and isomorphic. Where the construct is a bit lacking is in its clarity. You are welcome to click on any of the postings covering those topics in the archives feature of this blog.

148 PREDICTABLILITY AND CONTROL PROVIDED BY TRADITIONAL FEDERALISM

(February 6, 2012)

With this posting, I will end a series of postings in which I have taken a critical view of the utility the prevalent construct of the founding generation had. Of course, by “founding” I mean the generation of the late eighteenth century that started our political system. To evaluate the founding construct, I have depended on Meehan's criteria for judging social science theories and models (Meehan, E. J. (1969). Explanations in social science: A system paradigm. Homewood, IL: The Dorsey Press.). The utilized criteria to date consist of the following standards: comprehension, validity and completeness, correspondence to realities, consistency over time, clarity, and isomorphism. The construct has stood up well against such a review. Where the construct is a bit lacking is in its clarity. If you are of a mind, you can review these postings; they begin with my December 30 entry.

149 FURTHER CRITICISMS OF TRADITIONAL FEDERALISM

(February 9, 2012)

Since my posting of December 30, I have been applying the criteria developed by Eugene Meehan¹ to evaluate the traditional federalism perspective. That criteria was formulated to assist social scientists to critically judge theories and models of the social sciences. As a result of my review, I judged the perspective to be a fairly adequate construct by which to provide theoretical guidance for formulating an overall view of our governance and politics, particularly of the early period of our national history. I have also made the case that traditional federalism was the prevailing view of our founding fathers and that that tradition stretched back to our earliest colonial days. My only reservation in passing a favorable evaluation had to do with the perspective's clarity and I pointed out that during the time period between the writing of the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution, the political class was going through a transition in which basic views of federalist governance were being questioned. For example, to what degree should majority rule have unbridled authority to issue policy was a question with which they were struggling. In several states, those of the property class were disturbed as state legislatures were being too liberal with the interests of the debtor class. While states in their constitutions had bills of rights, they were not given the contractual language that would later be incorporated into the national Bill of Rights – where words such as should and ought replaced words such as shall and will. Consequently, the property class felt threatened as legislatures undermined contractual arrangements between landlords and lending agents and those indebted to them. But beyond this issue of clarity, the construct seemed fairly effective as a view of government and politics, particularly of the late eighteenth century.

150 A LACK OF INDIVIDUALITY

(February 13, 2012)

In this posting and those to follow, I will continue my critique of the traditional federalism construct. A lot of that critique will be directed at the construction's normative claims. Unlike systems based theories, those favored by advocates of the natural rights construct, the traditional federalism construct not only strives to guide research into what political realities are, but also what they should be. This latter perspective can be considered its normative side. This particular posting will comment on traditional federalism's view of rights and individual integrity.

1Meehan, E. J. (1969). Explanations in social science: A system paradigm. Homewood, IL: The Dorsey Press.

1Meehan, E. J. (1969). Explanations in social science: A system paradigm. Homewood, IL: The Dorsey Press.