Preambling into a new experiment in government

The Articles of Confederation had failed to achieve the vision of the leaders of the several states - the founding fathers, as we have come to call them - or at least those who were around back in the beginning we call founding fathers.

Why did they try again? They could have gone back to being individual states. They were pretty friendly with each other now, after the war.

They tried again because there were still enough people who believed in the obvious benefits of a formal union between the states - at least in the benefits of a common defense against unfriendly outsiders, and the regulation of commerce between the states.

Virginia probably didn’t care terribly much about how Massachusetts and New York conducted their internal affairs, and the feeling was probably mutual, but there WAS still a desire to cooperate in things that affected all the states: again, mostly commerce and the other things that were common problems and common opportunities. Speaking with one voice, on certain issues, at least, was recognized, even then, as being a valuable thing.

Still, nobody particularly wanted to give up any soveriegnty, either. Shades of the later EU.

So, the need for a Union - a more effective union than they had had under the Articles of Confederation - was still recognized. And the issue of soverignty - states’ rights - was still in need of a compromise being hammered out. Our present-day constitution is the result of that desire for a union, and that eventual compromise, spelled out in words.

In fact, the reason for the constitution is actually stated pretty clearly in the document itself, in the Preamble: “... in order to form a more perfect union... “

The complete statement of purpose - the entire preamble - reads as follows:

“We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

The capitalization of certain of the words was in the form of the day. They capitalized whatever words were important. Which is to say, whatever they felt like capitalizing. The rules of grammar were easier to teach back then: you made them up as you went along.

The actual constitution was written by a relatively few men, but the debate as to what points were to be put into it and how it was to be worded, involved many people. Then, once it was written, it had to be sold to all the states. Some of them weren’t buying at first.

[next: part two of 1,027 parts.]

(Well, I hope not.)

[Note: I can almost hear the wheels clicking and turning inside A.’s delightful head. “It was either perfect, or not perfect. If they didn’t like it the first time, then it could not have been perfect. If it were perfect, they would not have wanted to change it. Therefore, the purpose can not have been ‘to form a more perfect union’.” Sigh. Ah, well. Just chalk it up to the times: the founding fathers were just that way. They wore ruffled shirts. Puffy pirate shirts. They wore powdered wigs. That’s just the way they talked. They were... effusive.]  :)