What was the Constitutional Convention of 1787? According to U. S. Department of State (.gov), “The Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia met between May and September of 1787 to address the problems of the weak central government that existed under the Articles of Confederation.” The main idea of this Constitutional Convention was “whether the federal government or the states would have more power”, according to mountvernon.org; this also says, “Many delegates believed that the federal government should be able to overrule state laws, but others feared that a strong federal government would oppress their citizens.” And for those of you who do not know, according to Wikipedia, “A coup d’état (/ˌkuːdeɪˈtɑː/; French for ‘stroke of state’), or simply a coup, is an illegal and overt attempt by a military organization or other government elites to unseat an incumbent leadership by force.” In this essay, I will form a debate between the affirmative and the negative of this statement, then I will resolve the two positions in the end.
The Constitutional Convention of 1787 was an illegal coup d’etat. In this part of the essay I will explain why I think that this is true. The main idea of the Constitutional Convention was to re-examine and make alternations to the Articles of Confederation (the Articles of Confederation were adopted in the year 1777, however, they were not ratified by all of the thirteen states until four years later, in 1781). In 1787, delegates from the U. S. entered Pennsylvania State House (which is now known as Independence Hall), and, to ensure secrecy, locked the doors and windows. They did this to make sure that press was not allowed to know what was happening. They also did this to ensure the delegates of the Constitutional Convention spoke their minds. All the delegates were sworn to secrecy, and they were not allowed to talk about what happened in that room until they were all dead. Few people expected anything to come of this, yet what happened was they did not just revise the Articles of Confederation, but they changed it completely! It was practically replaced by a new document, called the US Constitution. According to study.com, “What was the purpose of the Constitutional Convention? The original purpose was to amend the Articles of Confederation to form a stronger executive branch of government. This plan was replaced by the delegates’ determination to write a new document, the Constitution of the United States.” What happened in that room became known as “a bloodless coup d’etat,”, since the Articles of Confederation were not just revised, but replaced by the US Constitution. So how does a coup d’etat fit into all of this? If a coup d’etat is an illegal attempt by a government or military organization to remove a necessary leadership that is in power, by force, how does that fit into the replacement of the Articles of Confederation by the US Constitution? It is kind of simple, actually. The delegates who tried to revise the Articles of Confederation illegally attempted to remove the Articles of Confederation by force, which is the exactly what a coup d’etat is. And it was illegal, but how? What makes something illegal? According to LII (Legal Information Institute), “The term illegal means any action which is against or not authorized by the law or statute. Also called illicit or unlawful. It can refer to an action that is in violation of criminal law, like assault, arson, or murder.” Was this attempt illegal? If these people were part of the government who made laws, was it illegal for these people to change the Articles of Confederation? Well, the meaning of a coup d’etat (“an illegal and overt attempt by a military organization or other government elites to unseat an incumbent leadership by force”, according to Wikipedia) states that an attempt by a military or government organization, the delegates, to remove a leadership by force, the Articles of Confederation, is considered a coup d’etat, except for one detail, it needs to be illegal for it to be considered a coup d’etat. So was it illegal? Was this an illegal attempt to change the Articles of Confederation? The Antifederalists think so. This group of people said that the delegates of Philadelphia (Philadelphia being where the Constitution was written) exceeded their congressional authority to create a completely new document, illegally. They are correct. The delegates of Philadelphia did exceed their congressional authority to create a completely new document without all thirteen states agreeing, but the delegates changed it anyway. The Articles of Confederation were then replaced by the Constitution of the United States. However, does anyone else, today, think that the attempt to change the Articles into the Constitution was illegal? Most will say that yes, this was illegal, but sometimes we take for granted our ability to look for answers ourselves and we rely on someone else’s answers, even if they are correct. Here is what I think:
Was the attempt to change the Articles of Confederation into the Constitutional Convention illegal, even though it was changed by people who could change it? It is said that the Constitution was legally adopted into society, we know that much, but was the attempt to change the Articles illegal? It states in the Articles of Confederation that the articles could be changed, so it is starting to look like the attempt was not illegal after all. But wait, there’s more. The Articles state that they could be changed, but only if all thirteen states (’cause there were only thirteen states at the time), voted unanimously to change them, and only nine of the original thirteen states voted to change them. The convention illegally disregarded the fact that all states needed to vote to change it in order to change it, and that was not how it was done. Only nine states decided to change it instead of all thirteen, and that was a complete violation of the Articles of Confederation, which means that the Constitutional Convention of 1787 was an illegal document. Is was not official because not all thirteen states agreed on it. Here is what the Articles of Confederation say:
Article 13: Declared that the Articles of Confederation were forever and could only be changed by the Congress of Confederation and if all the states agreed.
This plainly proves that the Constitutional Convention of 1787 was an illegal document and does not have any legality in the USA.
What were the results of the Constitutional Convention of 1787 after it was made “legal”? According to U. S. Department of State (.gov), “The Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia met between May and September of 1787 to address the problems of the weak central government that existed under the Articles of Confederation. The United States Constitution that emerged from the convention established a federal government with more specific powers, including those related to conducting relations with foreign governments.” The Constitutional Convention of 1787 created a much stronger national government than the Articles of Confederation ever did. The Constitutional Convention may not have been legal (like, at all), but it did do some good, like create a stronger national government. However, it also did some things that were not good. According to menokin.org, “The Constitution also gave the federal government more power over money and taxes. The new system of government allowed Congress to control interstate commerce and barred states from creating their own coined money. It also granted the federal government the power to tax individuals.” It made a more powerful federal government. Also, according to senate.gov, “For over two centuries the Constitution has remained in force because its framers successfully separated and balanced governmental powers to safeguard the interests of majority rule and minority rights, of liberty and equality, and of the federal and state governments.” For those of you who do not know who framers are, according to Exploros, “The Framers of the Constitution were delegates to the Constitutional Convention and helped draft the Constitution of the United States. The main Founding Fathers were: John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and George Washington.” These people helped draft the Constitution of the United States, an illegal document.
However, despite the fact that the Constitution of the United States was an illegal document, it did do good. The Articles of Confederation did not even last a decade. Some of the reasons for this was quite obvious. There were also a lot of problems and events that lead to our current Constitution, the Constitution of the United States. What you will read next are some of reasons for the Constitution. According to The National Constitution Center, “Here is a quick list of the problems that occurred, and how these issues led to our current Constitution.
1. The states didn’t act immediately. It took until February 1779 for 12 states to approve the document. Maryland held out until March 1781, after it settled a land argument with Virginia.
2. The central government was designed to be very, very weak. The Articles established “the United States of America” as a perpetual union formed to defend the states as a group, but it provided few central powers beyond that. But it didn’t have an executive official or judicial branch.
3. The Articles Congress only had one chamber and each state had one vote. This reinforced the power of the states to operate independently from the central government, even when that wasn’t in the nation’s best interests.
4. Congress needed 9 of 13 states to pass any laws. Requiring this high supermajority made it very difficult to pass any legislation that would affect all 13 states.
5. The document was practically impossible to amend. The Articles required unanimous consent to any amendment, so all 13 states would need to agree on a change. Given the rivalries between the states, that rule made the Articles impossible to adapt after the war ended with Britain in 1783.
6. The central government couldn’t collect taxes to fund its operations. The Confederation relied on the voluntary efforts of the states to send tax money to the central government. Lacking funds, the central government couldn’t maintain an effective military or back its own paper currency.
7. States were able to conduct their own foreign policies. Technically, that role fell to the central government, but the Confederation government didn’t have the physical ability to enforce that power, since it lacked domestic and international powers and standing.
8. States had their own money systems. There wasn’t a common currency in the Confederation era. The central government and the states each had separate money, which made trade between the states, and other countries, extremely difficult.
9. The Confederation government couldn’t help settle Revolutionary War-era debts. The central government and the states owed huge debts to European countries and investors. Without the power to tax, and with no power to make trade between the states and other countries viable, the United States was in an economic mess by 1787.
10. Shays’ rebellion – the final straw. A tax protest by western Massachusetts farmers in 1786 and 1787 showed the central government couldn’t put down an internal rebellion. It had to rely on a state militia sponsored by private Boston business people. With no money, the central government couldn’t act to protect the “perpetual union.””
It was these events described here that the Articles of Confederation caused that lead to the ratification of the Constitution of the United States. However, it was mainly Shays’ rebellion that lead to the Constitutional Convention of 1787. If it was not for this one event, the Constitutional Convention probably would not have ever happened. This rebellion was a violent insurrection in the countryside of Massachusetts from 1786-1787. It was caused by a monetary debt crisis at the end of the American Revolutionary War. Debts were high, so the government thought it was a good idea to cause hyperinflation in order to pay off these debts. They were wrong. Some of the people revolted against the government, resulting in Shay’s rebellion.
Also, the Half-King deceived George Washington in 1754. This deception led to the Battle of Jumonville Glen. Years later, Henry Knox also deceived George Washington about current events in 1786. It was these two deceptions that changed the history of the West. Anyway, Washington was really angry because of these people deceiving him. He just grew tired of it. It was because of this that he them attended the constitutional Convention of 1787, even after he repeatably said he would not. The president of the United States just being present gave the Convention legitimacy. This eventually led to the ratification of the Constitution.
However, remember that the Constitution needed to be agreed upon by all the states to be changed, but only nine agreed. Just because it was ratified does not mean it is legal, no matter how many people think it is legal. They needed all the states to change, but only nine agreed, but they changed it anyway, making the Constitution of the United States illegal. The president just ave the Convention legitimacy, which led to the ratification of the Constitution, but nothing else. The Constitution is still illegal.
So even though the Constitution of the United States was an illegal document, it was accepted by the United States and was made official, and it does do good, and it did solve several problems that were caused by the former Articles of Confederation. However, that does not make the Constitution legal. If there is an authority in power, in this case the Articles of Confederation, then you have to follow it, or suffer the consequences. That is how sanctions (rewards) work. You get good sanctions if you follow the rules, and you get bad sanctions if you disobey. It does not matter if people did not agree with this law, that was the law. And if there are bad laws, you can get them changed, like what these people did with the Articles. They changed them to the Constitution of the United States. But, Article 13 clearly stated: “Declared that the Articles of Confederation were forever and could only be changed by the Congress of Confederation and if all the states agreed.” And not all of the states agreed with the changing of the Articles of Confederation. So despite the fact that this was a bad law, it was the law, and this law was not followed, making the Constitution of the United States an insufficient document to be placed in power, but it was placed in power anyway, making this document illegal. It does not matter if it does good, or if people disagree with you and say that the Constitution of the United States was legal, because it is not legal. Even though the Articles were bad laws, Article 13 states that all states have to agree with it’s changing, and not all states agreed, therefore they could not change it, but they changed it anyway. This means that the Constitution of the United States is totally illegal.
Despite the fact that the Constitution of the United States was illegal, it was ratified anyway. But why was the Constitution of the United States ratified? According to The White House (.gov), “A chief aim of the Constitution as drafted by the Convention was to create a government with enough power to act on a national level, but without so much power that fundamental rights would be at risk.” And I believe that it did this. And even though only nine of the original thirteen states agreed to change the Articles of Confederation, they all eventually ratified it, but it was still illegal because only nine states agreed to change it. The Constitution of the United States was written in 1787, and it was ratified in 1788. According to Senate.gov, “Written in 1787, ratified in 1788, and in operation since 1789, the United States Constitution is the world’s longest surviving written charter of government. Its first three words – “We The People” – affirm that the government of the United States exists to serve its citizens.” But does it do this? Does the Constitution of the United States affirm that the government exist to serve the people? And does the United States government serve its citizens? That exert says that yes, the government exists to serve the people, and I am sure that it did, but does it still exist to serve the people today? I am sure the government still exists to serve the people today, but the government was a lot better fifty years ago than today in my opinion. The government definitely got better over the years, but I think that it just went in a downward spiral over time. Over time, if governments are not kept in check, or we chose the wrong people for different offices, the government can get out of hand. Governments are greedy and deceitful, and if they are not kept in check, then it could get messy. The government makes new laws that benefit them, however, they do not benefit the citizens. In fact, the citizens would be better off if some laws had never been written. Governments get greedy and they make laws that benefit them, but not the citizens, and as a result of that, the nation can fall into chaos.
Fun fact, did you know that the Constitution Of the United States is a “living, breathing” document? No? If not then I will be happy explain it to you. If a document is said to be living and breathing, that means that the document is allowed to, and can be, changed. You need permission from most of the states to change it, of course, but it can be changed. A living, breathing document is a bad thing. What people are saying when they say the Constitution is living and breathing, what they mean is that the judges should have complete power to interpret the Constitution in such a way that allows the federal government to do all sorts of things. A living, breathing document is not at all a sturdy document that you can build the federal government on. It is unstable. And maybe someday it will come crashing down on all of us. The nation will be in total chaos. A living, breathing document is not a good thing to have around. A man named Kevin Gutzman once said “the “living, breathing” Constitution is actually a dead Constitution.” A living and breathing document is not a solid document you can just build your government on.
So there are things about the Constitution of the United States that are not good. However, the Constitution does do other things or allows other things to happen that are good and really help the U. S. as a nation, despite the fact that it is sort of illegal. According to the University of Baltimore, “First it creates a national government consisting of a legislative, an executive, and a judicial branch, with a system of checks and balances among the three branches. Second, it divides power between the federal government and the states. And third, it protects various individual liberties of American citizens.” Creating a national government, dividing power between the federal government and the states, and protecting our liberties are all amazing things that the Constitution does, and they have helped build our country into a much stronger nation. However, other things make the United States a strong nation. According to Study.com, “The United States is a world power and a superpower for many reasons. For one, the United States has the best-equipped and best-funded military on Earth. Unlike other countries, the U.S. can project its military power across the world through its large air force and navy.” It also has great diplomatic and economic power, but I guess the Constitution of the United States allows for this to happen as well; some of it anyway.
In this part of the essay, I will explain why I think the Constitutional Convention was a coup d’etat. Actually, I think that it was a coup d’etat, and as such, I have nothing to argue. The Constitution of the US was voted to be changed by only nine states when all thirteen were supposed to agree to change it. However, they changed it anyway. Because of this, it was made illegal.
However, is it still illegal? I get that it was illegal because not all thirteen states agreed on it. Only nine did, but is it still illegal today, or is it legal now? Is the Constitution of the United States still illegal today? The answer is not as simple as you might think, based on what I have already written. The Constitution of the United States has remained in forced for over two hundred years. And it is considered legal today just because it was ratified by all thirteen states. The thirteenth amendment stated that they could only be changed if all the states agreed to change it. Not if all the states agreed to ratify it. There is a big difference between agreeing to change it and ratifying it, and they needed to agree to change it to change it. And because only nine out of thirteen states agreed to change it, it should be illegal, except for the fact that everyone believes that the Constitution is legal because all the states ratified it, but all the states needed to agree to change it in order to change it, and that did not happen. That is why I think that the Constitution of the United States should be an illegal document. So is the Constitution still illegal today? Many people will say that the Constitution of the United States is still illegal because it was not agreed upon by all the states to change it. Only nine agreed to change it, but all thirteen ratified it. It did not matter if they all ratified it, but if they agreed to change it. They all needed to agree to change it in order to change it, but only nine out of the thirteen states agreed to do this. That is why I think that the Constitution is an illegal document. This is legitimate proof that the Constitution of the United States is an illegal and illegitimate document.
I once told one of my friends about why I think the US Constitution was illegal, and he said, if the states ratified the Constitution, shouldn’t it be legal? I told him what I just told you, that just because the Constitution was ratified does not mean it is legal. I told him about the Articles of Confederation, namely Article 13, and that the Articles needed to be agreed unanimously by the states in order to change it, which did not happen. Therefore, making the changing of the Articles of Confederation into the Constitution of the United States illegal. It does not matter if it was ratified by all the states, only if it was agreed on by all states, that having not happened.
However, despite all this evidence of the Constitution of the United States, and how it is technically illegal, lets not forget the actual reason I am writing this essay, was the Constitutional Convention of 1787 an illegal coup d’etat? I think I already got my point across to you earlier in this essay, but it does not hurt to go back and review. As a reminder, a coup d’etat is when a military or any other type of organization illegally tries to ‘unseat’ a leadership (whether that be a document, governor, president, etc) by force. I already told you that only nine out of thirteen states agreed to change it, so we know it was illegal, but was it a coup d’etat? If you were paying attention to the earlier part of this essay, you would know the answer already, but just to recap, I will explain it again. The main idea of the Constitutional Convention was to re-examine and make alternations to the Articles of Confederation. Few people expected anything to come of this, yet what happened was they did not just revise the Articles of Confederation, but they changed it completely! It was practically replaced by a new document, called the US Constitution. The delegates were the political party in this scenario, but did they try to ‘unseat’ the Articles of confederation (the leadership in force) by force? And was it illegal? Well, they did change the Articles of Confederation into the United States Constitution when only nine of the thirteen states agreed to change it, so it was illegal. However, was it by force? Even though nine of thirteen states agreed to change it, it was changed anyway, but does that mean that it was removed by force? Pretty much, yes. Even though The Articles were not really a strong foundation for the US, they were the law. Article 13 stated that the Articles could only be changed if all states agree to change it. However, as you already know, only nine of thirteen states agreed to change it. This is evidence that the Constitution of the United States is an illegal document and should not be in power.
Now, you may be asking yourself, “Did anyone disapprove the changing of the Articles of Confederation into the United States Constitution?” Well, I have been asking myself that too. According to the National Archives, “Those known as Antifederalists opposed the Constitution for a variety of reasons. Some continued to argue that the delegates in Philadelphia had exceeded their congressional authority by replacing the Articles of Confederation with an illegal new document.” These Antifederalists also claimed that the Constitution threatened liberties and failed in its job to protect people’s individual rights. These Antifederalists are actually right. Not about its failure to protect individual rights mind you, but about the delegates in Philadelphia exceeding their congressional authority by replacing the Articles of Confederation with the US Constitution, which they called an illegal document, and they are absolutely right! The Constitution was an illegal document and it still is. The delegates in Philadelphia exceeded their congressional authority to create an illegal document they called the Constitution of the United States. I am sure that you can understand why I say this because of how much I just talked about why the Constitution was an illegal document. I agree with these Antifederalists about this document being illegal. I have researched the Constitution of the US and I believe that the Constitution is an illegal document, just like the Antifederalists believed.
The Constitution is an illegal document and has no legality on the US. However, despite the fact that it is illegal, the Constitution has been widely accepted and is now a part of the government. People do not care if the Constitution is an illegal document. They only care that it is in power, and nothing can change it. They think that just because it is part of the government, they think it belongs there, when in fact, it does not. It is an illegal document, so it should not even be a part of the government. If you look at it right, the Articles of Confederation are still in power, even if do not, or will not, believe it; and the Constitution of the United States belongs in the garbage (figuratively speaking). It has no legality in the United States, so therefore, should not even be a thing, but it is because people do not care how it got there. They think that just because it is there, means it belongs there. That is hardly the case. These people simply refuse, or do not care, to look at the evidence. Besides, the Constitution is written extremely deep into the law. If we were to get rid of of the Constitution and replace it with the Articles of Confederation, which are the actual legal documents that should be in power today, we would have to completely replace and rewrite the entire law! Well, most of it. I am not suggesting that we get rid of the Constitution, not at all! I am simply stating that it is an illegal document and the attempt to change the Articles into the Constitution was, indeed, an illegal coup d’etat. However, since it is so deeply written into the law and pretty much everything else that has to do with America, you cannot get rid of it. It does not matter if it is illegal, it is the law, whether people want it to be, or not. I am not suggesting that we change the law, but the Constitution is illegal, whether you like it, or not. However, the Constitution is the law, and there is nothing we can do to change it.
Remember, the real topic of this essay is “The Constitutional Convention of 1787 was an illegal coup d’etat.”, and I want to take a quick review. Was the Convention a coup d’etat? The delegates removed a power in force (the Articles of Confederation), by force (all thirteen states needed to agree to change it, but only nine did, however, they changed it anyway), and replaced it with a completely new document (the Constitution of the United States). So yes, it was a coup d’etat. Was it illegal? They changed the Articles into the Constitution when only nine states agreed when all thirteen had to agree. I would say that that is reason enough to call it an illegal, and therefore illegitimate document.
In this essay is some of the information that you will need to know if the Constitution of the United States was illegal and the Constitutional Convention of 1787 was a coup d’etat. The information that I have given you in this essay is evidence that the Constitution of the United States is an illegal document and should still be an illegal document. And now you know that the Constitutional Convention of 1787 was, indeed, a coup d’etat. And you also know why the Constitution of the United States is an illegal document. I hope you will agree with me that everything I wrote in this essay is true, and I encourage you to do your own research on this topic. Maybe you will find something that I did not include in this essay.