What do you think?
Rate this book
America's Counter-Revolution: The Constitution Revisited
This book challenges the assumption that the Constitution was a landmark in the struggle for liberty. Instead, Sheldon Richman argues, it was the product of a counter-revolution, a setback for the radicalism represented by America’s break with the British empire. Drawing on careful, credible historical scholarship and contemporary political analysis, Richman suggests that this counter-revolution was the work of conservatives who sought a nation of “power, consequence, and grandeur.” America’s Counter-Revolution makes a persuasive case that the Constitution was a victory not for liberty but for the agendas and interests of a militaristic, aristocratic, privilege-seeking ruling class.
The Anti-Federalists were The pursuit of "national greatness" inevitably diminishes liberty and centralizes government. The U.S. Constitution did both, as Sheldon Richman demonstrates in this powerfully argued anarchist case against the blueprint for empire known as the U.S. Constitution.
--Bill Kauffman, author, Forgotten Founder, Drunken The Life of Luther Martin
The libertarian movement has long suffered from a constitutional fetishism that embraces an ahistorical reverence for the U.S. Constitution. Far too many are unaware of the extent to which the framing and adoption of the Constitution was in fact a setback for the cause of liberty. Sheldon Richman, in a compilation of readable, well researched, and compelling essays, exposes the historical, theoretical, and strategic errors in the widespread reification of a purely political document. With no single correct interpretation, the Constitution has been predictably unable to halt the growth of the modern welfare-warfare American State. I urge all proponents of a free society to give his book their diligent attention.
--Jeffrey Rogers Hummel, Professor, San Jose State University; author, Emancipating Slaves, Enslaving Free A History of the American Civil War
"No state or government can limit itself through a written constitution, no matter how fine the words or how noble the sentiments they express. It is one of the many virtues of Sheldon Richman's book that it shows how this is true even of the American Constitution, which despite the promises of its designers and the insistence of its defenders down the years, made limited government less and not more likely."
--Chandran Kukathas, London School of Economics
“Richman delivers an accessible, incisive, and well-grounded argument that the Constitution centralized power and undid some of the Revolution’s liberating gains. He rebuts patriotic platitudes but avoids the crude contrarianism so common in libertarian revisionism written for popular consumption. He does not romanticize America’s past or overstate his case. Radical and nuanced, deferential to freedom and historical truth, Richman rises above hagiography or demonization of either the Federalists or anti-Federalists to produce an unsurpassed libertarian exploration of the subject.”
— Anthony Gregory, Independent Institute
“[A]fter reading this book, you will never think about the U.S. Constitution and America’s founding the same way again. Sheldon Richman’s revealing and remarkably well-argued narrative will permanently change your outlook. . . . Richman . . . [is] one of this country’s most treasured thinkers and writers . . . . [H]e draws on the most contemporary and important scholarly research, while putting the evidence in prose that is accessible and compelling.”
— Jeffrey A. Tucker, Liberty.me and Foundation for Economic Education
The Anti-Federalists were The pursuit of "national greatness" inevitably diminishes liberty and centralizes government. The U.S. Constitution did both, as Sheldon Richman demonstrates in this powerfully argued anarchist case against the blueprint for empire known as the U.S. Constitution.
--Bill Kauffman, author, Forgotten Founder, Drunken The Life of Luther Martin
The libertarian movement has long suffered from a constitutional fetishism that embraces an ahistorical reverence for the U.S. Constitution. Far too many are unaware of the extent to which the framing and adoption of the Constitution was in fact a setback for the cause of liberty. Sheldon Richman, in a compilation of readable, well researched, and compelling essays, exposes the historical, theoretical, and strategic errors in the widespread reification of a purely political document. With no single correct interpretation, the Constitution has been predictably unable to halt the growth of the modern welfare-warfare American State. I urge all proponents of a free society to give his book their diligent attention.
--Jeffrey Rogers Hummel, Professor, San Jose State University; author, Emancipating Slaves, Enslaving Free A History of the American Civil War
"No state or government can limit itself through a written constitution, no matter how fine the words or how noble the sentiments they express. It is one of the many virtues of Sheldon Richman's book that it shows how this is true even of the American Constitution, which despite the promises of its designers and the insistence of its defenders down the years, made limited government less and not more likely."
--Chandran Kukathas, London School of Economics
“Richman delivers an accessible, incisive, and well-grounded argument that the Constitution centralized power and undid some of the Revolution’s liberating gains. He rebuts patriotic platitudes but avoids the crude contrarianism so common in libertarian revisionism written for popular consumption. He does not romanticize America’s past or overstate his case. Radical and nuanced, deferential to freedom and historical truth, Richman rises above hagiography or demonization of either the Federalists or anti-Federalists to produce an unsurpassed libertarian exploration of the subject.”
— Anthony Gregory, Independent Institute
“[A]fter reading this book, you will never think about the U.S. Constitution and America’s founding the same way again. Sheldon Richman’s revealing and remarkably well-argued narrative will permanently change your outlook. . . . Richman . . . [is] one of this country’s most treasured thinkers and writers . . . . [H]e draws on the most contemporary and important scholarly research, while putting the evidence in prose that is accessible and compelling.”
— Jeffrey A. Tucker, Liberty.me and Foundation for Economic Education
154 pages, Paperback
Published April 6, 2016
21 people are currently reading
113 people want to read
About the author
Sheldon Richman
16 books20 followersSheldon Richman is the executive editor of The Libertarian Institute, senior fellow and chair of the trustees of the Center for a Stateless Society, and a contributing editor at Antiwar.com. He is the former senior editor at the Cato Institute and Institute for Humane Studies, former editor of The Freeman, published by the Foundation for Economic Education, and former vice president at the Future of Freedom Foundation. His latest book is Coming to Palestine.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 12 of 12 reviews
Read
August 5, 2016“America’s Counter-Revolution, dedicated “To the constitutionalists of all parties,” gives new meaning to the word pithy. In 20 short chapters (most of which were previously columns in the Freeman and elsewhere) Sheldon Richman achieves a remarkable thematic coherence, giving the reader a nice window into American constitutional argument and thus into American history.
Building on Arthur E. Ekirch’s Decline of American Liberalism (1955), Richman concludes that the Federalists gave America a vague constitution having the appearance of limited powers but marred by implied ones: a “living constitution” for conservative nationalists. The Federalists, recall, set imperial greatness above liberty and thought real limits on power “impossible”; so-called Anti-Federalists opposed the rule of self-nominated aristocrats and believed in dispersed power.”
http://www.theamericanconservative.co...
Building on Arthur E. Ekirch’s Decline of American Liberalism (1955), Richman concludes that the Federalists gave America a vague constitution having the appearance of limited powers but marred by implied ones: a “living constitution” for conservative nationalists. The Federalists, recall, set imperial greatness above liberty and thought real limits on power “impossible”; so-called Anti-Federalists opposed the rule of self-nominated aristocrats and believed in dispersed power.”
http://www.theamericanconservative.co...
December 11, 2020
This book is a real powerhouse! Loved it!
March 21, 2022
Summary: https://reason.com/2016/01/24/revisit...
Further reading:
The Myth of the Rule of Law, by John Hasnas
https://repository.law.wisc.edu/s/uwl...
Libertarianism, Law and Economics, and the Common Law, Todd Zywicki.
https://www.law.gmu.edu/pubs/papers/1...
Anarchism/Minarchism: Is a Government Part of a Free Country?
Roderick T. Long & Tibor R. Machan (eds.) ... very expensive.
Further reading:
The Myth of the Rule of Law, by John Hasnas
https://repository.law.wisc.edu/s/uwl...
Libertarianism, Law and Economics, and the Common Law, Todd Zywicki.
https://www.law.gmu.edu/pubs/papers/1...
Anarchism/Minarchism: Is a Government Part of a Free Country?
Roderick T. Long & Tibor R. Machan (eds.) ... very expensive.
November 9, 2016
A well thought out text with convincing arguments.
This is a well thought out book with convincing arguments. Essentially, the ideas of liberty do not enforce themselves, but it is lovers of liberty who need to achieve liberty. Laws written on parchment or paper are only enforced when the are enforced by people.
BTW, the format is messed up a bit.
This is a well thought out book with convincing arguments. Essentially, the ideas of liberty do not enforce themselves, but it is lovers of liberty who need to achieve liberty. Laws written on parchment or paper are only enforced when the are enforced by people.
BTW, the format is messed up a bit.
October 1, 2018
Terrific meta-analysis of writings, past and present on the critical years of the Articles of Confederation (prior to our Constitution) - something shamefully rarely taught in any US public schools. Could the Constitution have been a betrayal of the American Revolution? Many say, yes!
July 11, 2022
Good stuff
Open your mind, Sheldon shows us why it is this way and also that it doesn't have to be this way. Decentralize Decentralize Decentralize, how far? State? County? City? Individual? I'm game let's start with true federalism and go from there.
Open your mind, Sheldon shows us why it is this way and also that it doesn't have to be this way. Decentralize Decentralize Decentralize, how far? State? County? City? Individual? I'm game let's start with true federalism and go from there.
January 3, 2019
Completely disagree with the premise, someone has been reading a bit too much Beard.
September 11, 2022
A must read for anyone interested in politics and the constitution. Everything is not as it seems.
December 23, 2024
Might have reached for four stars but the book badly needs an editor.
Also, the latter half of the book seemed out of synch with the first half.
Also, the latter half of the book seemed out of synch with the first half.
December 19, 2019
In order to accept this short book's thesis, especially uncritically, you probably need to be an anarcho-libertarian as author Sheldon Richman claims to be. But to merely entertain the thesis, the reader need only be open-minded.
Richman holds that some of the Framers of the Constitution, far from desiring the Constitution to safeguard and promote individual liberty, intended for the Constitution to help make their new nation a nation of "power, consequence and grandeur." It's not merely that the Constitution has not proven entirely effective; it's that a certain faction of the Framers actually wanted the document to accomplish the exact opposite of what Americans are now taught. That's the entire argument. The rest of the book is devoted to quoting various primary and secondary sources as evidence.
I don't disagree with the idea, especially since Richman does not go too far and suggest all the Framers pursued the Constitution in bad faith. Not exactly. I'm taking him with a grain of salt, though. Not the thesis--Richman. I have the same reaction I have to most libertarians.
In totality, the thesis and the commentary surrounding it come off as an anarcho-libertarian lament that America was never anarcho-libertarian after the Articles of Confederation (which he obviously likes). Once you figure that out, it's very difficult to take Richman completely seriously, any more than you'd take Karl Marx seriously if he had raged over America never being Communist. Richman obviously analyzes the Revolution, the Articles, the Constitution, and the two factions (Federalists and Anti-Federalists) from a libertarian viewpoint rather than from a Constitutionalist viewpoint. As his secondary sources (some going back to the 1950s) show, the revelation that certain Framers had little interest in safeguarding individual liberty is not new, not quite. That's not the problem here. The problem is that I question the propriety of applying libertarianism, a political philosophy that coalesced in the mid-20th century, to the worldview of the Framers. It's related to advice many of my professors gave repeatedly: Do not try to analyze history from your own contemporary viewpoint, but from theirs. Richman does exactly that, confidently projecting the libertarian worldview onto the Founders and Framers. He and other hardcore libertarians probably just don't get that classical liberalism, the politico-economic philosophy of the founders, is not entirely synonymous with libertarianism.
...This is not an academic, purportedly objective book.
Richman holds that some of the Framers of the Constitution, far from desiring the Constitution to safeguard and promote individual liberty, intended for the Constitution to help make their new nation a nation of "power, consequence and grandeur." It's not merely that the Constitution has not proven entirely effective; it's that a certain faction of the Framers actually wanted the document to accomplish the exact opposite of what Americans are now taught. That's the entire argument. The rest of the book is devoted to quoting various primary and secondary sources as evidence.
I don't disagree with the idea, especially since Richman does not go too far and suggest all the Framers pursued the Constitution in bad faith. Not exactly. I'm taking him with a grain of salt, though. Not the thesis--Richman. I have the same reaction I have to most libertarians.
In totality, the thesis and the commentary surrounding it come off as an anarcho-libertarian lament that America was never anarcho-libertarian after the Articles of Confederation (which he obviously likes). Once you figure that out, it's very difficult to take Richman completely seriously, any more than you'd take Karl Marx seriously if he had raged over America never being Communist. Richman obviously analyzes the Revolution, the Articles, the Constitution, and the two factions (Federalists and Anti-Federalists) from a libertarian viewpoint rather than from a Constitutionalist viewpoint. As his secondary sources (some going back to the 1950s) show, the revelation that certain Framers had little interest in safeguarding individual liberty is not new, not quite. That's not the problem here. The problem is that I question the propriety of applying libertarianism, a political philosophy that coalesced in the mid-20th century, to the worldview of the Framers. It's related to advice many of my professors gave repeatedly: Do not try to analyze history from your own contemporary viewpoint, but from theirs. Richman does exactly that, confidently projecting the libertarian worldview onto the Founders and Framers. He and other hardcore libertarians probably just don't get that classical liberalism, the politico-economic philosophy of the founders, is not entirely synonymous with libertarianism.
...This is not an academic, purportedly objective book.
June 11, 2016
Needs better editing
I really enjoyed this book. It's full of valuable insights and gives a short and informative background on American history. I really want to give this book 5 stars but it's riddle with so many grammatical errors that I can't give it that. Literally every page has words that need to be spaced and there were times where the font went from black to red which I thought was annoying. It could be the format on my kindle that's doing this (I hope that's the case). If that's not the case then this book should be edited again. Overall it was a great read and I took many notes.
I really enjoyed this book. It's full of valuable insights and gives a short and informative background on American history. I really want to give this book 5 stars but it's riddle with so many grammatical errors that I can't give it that. Literally every page has words that need to be spaced and there were times where the font went from black to red which I thought was annoying. It could be the format on my kindle that's doing this (I hope that's the case). If that's not the case then this book should be edited again. Overall it was a great read and I took many notes.
January 31, 2017
The author lays forth a very provocative thesis that the Constitution is not the culmination of the Revolution's ideals of liberty and democracy. But rather, it represented a pushback against those sentiments and instead laid the foundation for the strong central government we have today. It's one of those books that gives the reader a lot to think about as the author cuts through the mythology that has been built up around the Constitution over the years. The book is actually a collection of essays, and there is some overlap and repetition in the material. But it's short, readable, and very worthwhile.
Displaying 1 - 12 of 12 reviews