Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 25 of 25
Full-Text Articles in History
The Text Of The Standing Orders Of The Federal Convention: Jackson’S And Madison’S Texts Surveyed, Peter J. Aschenbrenner
The Text Of The Standing Orders Of The Federal Convention: Jackson’S And Madison’S Texts Surveyed, Peter J. Aschenbrenner
Peter J. Aschenbrenner
Drawing on Farrand’s Records of the Federal Convention of 1787, Vol. 1, Our Constitutional Logic has reconciled the differences between the text of the standing Orders as presented in the text of William Jackson, the convention’s secretary, and James Madison, the convention’s semi-official reporter, both as edited by Max Farrand. This text will appear in Basic Texts in the Founding of Parliamentary Science Originating from the United Kingdom and United States (in MR Text Format), 2 OCL 136_5; in turn, OCL is producing the first concordance of these texts in Founding the Science of Parliamentary Procedure, 1785-1789: Basic Texts in …
Table Annexed To Article: An Introduction To Quorum Issues At The Federal Convention, Peter J. Aschenbrenner
Table Annexed To Article: An Introduction To Quorum Issues At The Federal Convention, Peter J. Aschenbrenner
Peter J. Aschenbrenner
The first Standing Order of the federal convention directed voting by states under a ‘one state, one vote’ formula, but without the fatal ‘one state, one veto’ formula which Rhode Island abused in the Confederation Congress. “A House to do business shall consist of the Deputies of not less than seven States; and all questions shall be decided by the greater number of these which shall be fully represented; but a less number than seven may adjourn from day to day.” See A Survey of the Standing Orders of the Federal Convention and the Differences Between Jackson’s and Madison’s Text, …
Detailed Delegate Attendance Table From Farrand’S Records Of The Federal Convention (May 25, 1787-September 17, 1787), Peter J. Aschenbrenner, David Kimball
Detailed Delegate Attendance Table From Farrand’S Records Of The Federal Convention (May 25, 1787-September 17, 1787), Peter J. Aschenbrenner, David Kimball
Peter J. Aschenbrenner
Fifty-five delegates were appointed by twelve states to attend the 1787 federal constitutional convention: the first day of business was held May 25, 1787. Twenty-nine delegates attended the session on that day, the low-water mark; forty-five attended on June 15, the high-point for delegate appearances. OCL updates the attendance data, which was last surveyed in Farrand's Records, 3 Farrand 586-590 (rev. ed. 1937).
Table Annexed To Article: How The Twenty-Six Superfounders Fared At The Ballot Box, Peter J. Aschenbrenner
Table Annexed To Article: How The Twenty-Six Superfounders Fared At The Ballot Box, Peter J. Aschenbrenner
Peter J. Aschenbrenner
Twenty-six delegates who attended the federal convention at Philadelphia and who signed the constitution also attended their state ratifying conventions. Many of these SuperFounders ran for federal elective office in the first federal elections.
Table Annexed To Article: A Survey Of The Federal Convention's Note-Takers, Peter J. Aschenbrenner
Table Annexed To Article: A Survey Of The Federal Convention's Note-Takers, Peter J. Aschenbrenner
Peter J. Aschenbrenner
Eleven of the fifty-five delegates that attended the Federal Convention took notes during the proceedings. These notes, along with Jackson’s official journal and available committee drafts, are assembled in Farrand’s Records of the Federal Convention of 1787. The best known are Major Wm. Jackson and James Madison, the convention’s official Secretary and its unofficial note-taker, respectively. The efforts of all twelve note-takers are surveyed by output.
Table Annexed To Article: Slave_Owner Attendance In Twenty-Five Votes On Article Ii, Section 1 Based On Updated Attendance Table, Peter J. Aschenbrenner
Table Annexed To Article: Slave_Owner Attendance In Twenty-Five Votes On Article Ii, Section 1 Based On Updated Attendance Table, Peter J. Aschenbrenner
Peter J. Aschenbrenner
Our Constitutional Logic tables the attendance of Slave_Owner delegates in the twenty-five votes on Article II, Section 1 at the Philadelphia convention on August 24 and September 5 and 6, 1787; the information is drawn from Detailed Attendance Table Updating the Table Appearing in Farrand’s Records of the Federal Convention, May 25, 1787-September 17, 1787, 2 OCL 100, in which OCL updated the attendance data which was last surveyed in Farrand's Records of the Federal Convention of 1787, Vol. 3: 586-590.
Table Annexed To Article: Secrecy Broken: Reports Of The Delegates Following The Federal Convention, Peter J. Aschenbrenner
Table Annexed To Article: Secrecy Broken: Reports Of The Delegates Following The Federal Convention, Peter J. Aschenbrenner
Peter J. Aschenbrenner
Despite the measures taken to ensure the secrecy of the proceedings during the federal convention, many delegates made reports to their states and explained the choices behind various clauses. However, no delegate had access to the official journal of the constitutional convention.
Delegate Arrivals At Philadelphia Compared To Voting Records At The Ratification Conventions By State, Peter J. Aschenbrenner, David Kimball
Delegate Arrivals At Philadelphia Compared To Voting Records At The Ratification Conventions By State, Peter J. Aschenbrenner, David Kimball
Peter J. Aschenbrenner
Fifty-five delegates were appointed by twelve states to attend the federal convention in May, 1787. Eleven states ratified the Constitution between December 7, 1787 and July 26, 1788. When delegate arrival dates are compared with the order in which their respective state ratification conventions completed their business, a significant number of delegates supporting the constitution are missing in action.
Table Annexed To Article: The Mathematical Logic Of Blocking Power: From Thirteen To Forty-Four States, Peter J. Aschenbrenner
Table Annexed To Article: The Mathematical Logic Of Blocking Power: From Thirteen To Forty-Four States, Peter J. Aschenbrenner
Peter J. Aschenbrenner
OCL explores the mathematical logic of blocking power, that is, the power to block organic change. In Constitution I (the Articles of Confederation) the formula was absurdly simple. Any state, no matter how geographically small, economically insignificant and revoltingly irrelevant could block organic change desired by all the other constituents. Hence, secession orchestrated (via Constitution II) so that the first nine states (willing to do so) could secede from Rhode Island.
The Mathematical Logic Of Blocking Power: From Thirteen To Forty-Four States, Peter J. Aschenbrenner
The Mathematical Logic Of Blocking Power: From Thirteen To Forty-Four States, Peter J. Aschenbrenner
Peter J. Aschenbrenner
OCL explores the mathematical logic of blocking power, that is, the power to block organic change. In Constitution I (the Articles of Confederation) the formula was absurdly simple. Any state, no matter how geographically small, economically insignificant and revoltingly irrelevant could block organic change desired by all the other constituents. Hence, secession orchestrated (via Constitution II) so that the first nine states (willing to do so) could secede from Rhode Island.
A Survey Of Note-Takers In Farrand, Peter J. Aschenbrenner
A Survey Of Note-Takers In Farrand, Peter J. Aschenbrenner
Peter J. Aschenbrenner
Twelve writers took notes of proceedings at the federal convention beginning in May, 1787 at Philadelphia. The best known are Major Wm. Jackson and James Madison, the convention’s official Secretary and its unofficial note-taker, respectively. The efforts of all twelve note-takers are surveyed by output.
Staying The Propanganda Machine: How The Logic Of Secrecy Exposes Possibilities And Probabilities In The Ratification Process, Peter J. Aschenbrenner
Staying The Propanganda Machine: How The Logic Of Secrecy Exposes Possibilities And Probabilities In The Ratification Process, Peter J. Aschenbrenner
Peter J. Aschenbrenner
The Standing Orders of the Philadelphia convention were modified on May 29, 1787 (what would have been their first day on the job) to drop the veil of secrecy over the work of the convention. Considered as a maneuver of preëemption against opponents of reform (outcome expected, given Congress’ resolution of February 21, 1787) the logic of secrecy exposes the possibility that it was a delaying device, staying the hand of reform supporters to launch their efforts until ‘signalled’ via publication of the final constitutional text.
Table Annexed To Article: What Happened On July 6, 1787 And Why It Matters, Peter J. Aschenbrenner
Table Annexed To Article: What Happened On July 6, 1787 And Why It Matters, Peter J. Aschenbrenner
Peter J. Aschenbrenner
The first Standing Order of the Philadelphia convention provided for per stirpes voting, that is, voting by state, but set the quorum requirement at seven and the action requirement at four, that is, an arithmetic majority/majority. Divided states (delegates equal in number on each side of a question) were counted towards the quorum requirement. The significance of a disputed vote on July 6 is explained.
Table Annexed To Article: Who Were The Superfounders? And Why Does It Matter?, Peter J. Aschenbrenner
Table Annexed To Article: Who Were The Superfounders? And Why Does It Matter?, Peter J. Aschenbrenner
Peter J. Aschenbrenner
Thirty-two of the fifty-five delegates who attended the federal convention went on to attend a ratifying convention; twenty-five are Yes-Founders and one, Gov. Edmund Randolph, won his ‘SuperFounder’ status at the Virginia Ratifying Convention. Never before surveyed as a group, the table annexed names the SuperFounders and details their opposite numbers, the NoFounders.
Table Annexed To Article: The Few, The Happy Few, Peter J. Aschenbrenner
Table Annexed To Article: The Few, The Happy Few, Peter J. Aschenbrenner
Peter J. Aschenbrenner
The fifty-five credentialed delegates who attended (at least one or more) sessions of the Philadelphia convention supplied thirty-nine delegate signatories. But this figure is not the fewest number of delegates who could have organized the United States of America; that is, a new government which would substitute for (or secede from) the United States in Congress Assembled, the style of the (then existing) government under the Articles of Confederation.
The Few, The Happy Few: How Many Delegates Would Be Required To Organize The United States Of America?, Peter J. Aschenbrenner
The Few, The Happy Few: How Many Delegates Would Be Required To Organize The United States Of America?, Peter J. Aschenbrenner
Peter J. Aschenbrenner
The fifty-five credentialed delegates who attended (at least one or more) sessions of the Philadelphia convention supplied thirty-nine delegate signatories. But this figure is not the fewest number of delegates who could have organized the United States of America; that is, a new government which would substitute for (or secede from) the United States in Congress Assembled, the style of the (then existing) government under the Articles of Confederation.
Table Annexed To Article: Secrecy Broken; Reports Of The Delegates, Peter J. Aschenbrenner
Table Annexed To Article: Secrecy Broken; Reports Of The Delegates, Peter J. Aschenbrenner
Peter J. Aschenbrenner
Despite the measures taken to ensure the secrecy of the proceedings during the federal convention, many delegates made reports to their states and explained the reasoning behind various clauses. However, no delegate had access to the official journal of the constitutional convention.
How The Twenty-Six Superfounders Fared At The Ballot Box, Peter J. Aschenbrenner
How The Twenty-Six Superfounders Fared At The Ballot Box, Peter J. Aschenbrenner
Peter J. Aschenbrenner
Twenty-six delegates who attended the federal convention at Philadelphia and who signed the constitution also attended their state ratifying conventions. Many of these SuperFounders ran for federal elective office in the first federal elections.
Table Annexed Article: Secrecy Broken Reports Of The Delegates At The Federal Convention, Peter J. Aschenbrenner
Table Annexed Article: Secrecy Broken Reports Of The Delegates At The Federal Convention, Peter J. Aschenbrenner
Peter J. Aschenbrenner
Despite the measures taken to ensure the secrecy of the proceedings during the federal convention, many delegates made reports to their states and explained the reasoning behind various clauses. However, no delegate had access to the official journal of the constitutional convention.
Secrecy Broken: Reports Of The Delegates Following The Federal Convention, Peter J. Aschenbrenner
Secrecy Broken: Reports Of The Delegates Following The Federal Convention, Peter J. Aschenbrenner
Peter J. Aschenbrenner
Despite the measures taken to ensure the secrecy of the proceedings during the federal convention, many delegates made reports to their states and explained the reasoning behind various clauses. However, no delegate had access to the official journal of the constitutional convention.
Table Annexed To Article: Who Were The Superfounders?, Peter J. Aschenbrenner
Table Annexed To Article: Who Were The Superfounders?, Peter J. Aschenbrenner
Peter J. Aschenbrenner
Thirty-two of the fifty-five delegates who attended the federal convention went on to attend a ratifying convention; twenty-five are Yes-Founders and one, Gov. Edmund Randolph, won his ‘SuperFounder’ status at the Virginia Ratifying Convention. Never before surveyed as a group, the table annexed names the SuperFounders and details their opposite numbers, the No-Founders.
Delegate Arrivals In Philadelphia Compared To Voting Records At The Ratification Conventions By State, Peter J. Aschenbrenner
Delegate Arrivals In Philadelphia Compared To Voting Records At The Ratification Conventions By State, Peter J. Aschenbrenner
Peter J. Aschenbrenner
Fifty-five delegates were appointed by twelve states to attend the federal convention in May, 1787. Eleven states ratified the Constitution between December 7, 1787 and July 26, 1788. When delegate arrival dates are compared with the order in which their respective state ratification conventions completed their business, a significant number of delegates supporting the constitution are missing in action.
When Did The Delegates Arrive In Philadelphia, Peter J. Aschenbrenner
When Did The Delegates Arrive In Philadelphia, Peter J. Aschenbrenner
Peter J. Aschenbrenner
Twelve states appointed fifty-five delegates to attend the federal convention in May, 1787 at Philadelphia. The arrival of the delegates may conveniently be grouped by the order of their arrival; further information assigned to delegates. Information tabled by Farrand (1911, 1937) will be verified and expanded.
Table Annexed To Article: Were Early Arrivers In Philadelphia More Likely To Support The Constitution, Peter J. Aschenbrenner
Table Annexed To Article: Were Early Arrivers In Philadelphia More Likely To Support The Constitution, Peter J. Aschenbrenner
Peter J. Aschenbrenner
Table annexed in support of Article: Fifty-five delegates were appointed by twelve states to attend the federal convention in May, 1787. Arrival of the delegates may be matched with support for or opposition to the Constitution. The eagerness of the delegates supporting a new constitution to go to work is demonstrated.
Were Early Arrivers In Philadelphia More Likely To Support The Constitution?, Peter J. Aschenbrenner
Were Early Arrivers In Philadelphia More Likely To Support The Constitution?, Peter J. Aschenbrenner
Peter J. Aschenbrenner
Fifty-five delegates were appointed by twelve states to attend the federal convention in May, 1787. Arrival of the delegates may be matched with support for or opposition to the Constitution. The eagerness of the delegates supporting a new constitution to go to work is demonstrated.