Beyond Confederation

by Richard Beeman, Edward C. Carter II (Editor), Stephen Botein (Editor)

Beyond Confederation scrutinizes the ideological background of the U.S. Constitution, the rigors of its writing and ratification, and the problems it both faced and provoked immediately after ratification. The essays in this collection question much of the heritage of eighteenth-century constitutional thought and suggest that many of the commonly debated issues have led us away from the truly germane questions. The authors challenge many of the traditional generalizations and the terms and scope of that debate as well.
The contributors raise fresh questions about the Constitution as it enters its third century. What happened in Philadelphia in 1787, and what happened in the state ratifying conventions? Why did the states--barely--ratify the Constitution? What were Americans of the 1789s attempting to achieve? The exploratory conclusions point strongly to an alternative constitutional tradition, some of it unwritten, much of it rooted in state constitutional law; a tradition that not only has redefined the nature and role of the Constitution but also has placed limitations on its efficacy throughout American history.
The authors are Lance Banning, Richard Beeman, Stephen Botein, Richard D. Brown, Richard E. Ellis, Paul Finkelman, Stanley N. Katz, Ralph Lerner, Drew R. McCoy, John M. Murrin, Jack N. Rakove, Janet A. Riesman, and Gordon S. Wood.

Genres: History, American Revolution, American History, Essays, Politics

376 pages, Paperback

First published March 1, 1987

About the author

Richard Roy Beeman was an American historian and biographer specializing in the American Revolution. Born in Seattle, he published multiple books, and was the John Walsh Centennial Professor of History at the University of Pennsylvania.

Reviews

[Alan Johnson · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is an interesting and thought-provoking collection of scholarly essays on the early United States, especially the formation of the Constitution and the early national period. The authors do not necessarily agree with each other, nor do I necessarily agree with everything in their essays. Their contributions nevertheless offer interpretations that challenge one's preconceptions and add to one's historical knowledge. Some of the essays in this 1987 volume later became chapters in the authors' respective books.

[Michael · Rating 3 out of 5]

Stephen Botein, "Religious Dimensions of the Early American State," in Richard R. Beeman, et al., Beyond Confederation (Chapel Hill, 1987), 315-330.

Opens with the 1984 presidential election, in which church-state relations assumed center stage. Little had been written on this topic by historians in the previous decades. This represented a grand evasion of religion as an issue in American life and government. Admitting that the Constitution of 1787 was remarkably secular for the time, Botein notes the religious overtones of the various state constitutions. Indeed the states were vociferous in protecting Christianity, outlawing blasphemy, protecting the Sabbath, proclaiming official days of thanksgiving, and other local protections of Christian religion. The federal constitution, by contrast was not anti-religious rather it was secular. Botein finds it surprising that there was not more criticism of this secularity. He finds the reason for the acceptance of this secularity in the very weakness of the federal government at that point. Such institutions as congressional chaplains were seen more like extensions of military chaplains, rather than as some grand pronouncement of national faith. Indeed, even early federal exhortation to the observance of religiously significant holidays was more of a "recommendation" than a proclamation. As the power of the national government grew, so too did the expectation of the pious that it exert a stronger role in religion. By the 1860s, as the federal government had become even stronger, there was a concerted effort (which failed) to put the Christian God back in the constitution. Botein concludes that the secularity of the federal constitution did not reflect any godlessness in the general political culture, but that given today's circumstances we should be hesitant to change that secularity.