Scan barcode
dngoldman's review
4.0
The thesis of Fletcher’s fascinating, readable yet scholarly book is that the post civil war area changes to the constitution were more than just significant revisions. They were in fact a new constitution. Similar to how the second french republic incorporated elements of the prior regimes but was still a new order.
The primary changes were as follows
From a collective of individuals to a nationhood (greater role of the fed vs states, nationalism with religious fervor).
From Freedom to Equality (dignity)
From Elite Republicanism to Popular democracy (greater expansion of voting rights)
Fletcher’s argument that Lincoln’s Gettysburg address is essentially a preamble to this new con situation, and his line by line analysis of that perfect piece of politically oratory is worth the price of admission. Gettysburg lays forth broad principles that can be expanded on as time goes forward. From there, Fletcher analyses each of the three new pillars - nationhood, equality, popular democracy. While his take on these items generally bends toward the progressive, he acknowledges how they can and have been used
Fletcher’s second major thesis is that this new Constitution essentially had to go underground, bending to the forces that make any radical change hard. Finally, Fletcher argues there has been a gradual, if uneven resurfacing of these ideals. For example, the original civil rights act in the late 1800s after the civil war amendments was struck down as unconstitutional. It was only in the 1960s that this same law was passed again, this time being upheld.
Of course we are still having an existential argument about this new constitution. As Fletcher sees it, the new constitution shifted the position of government from the original constitution - a 3rd party that we must be protected against - to a partner who is responsible from promoting equality, democracy, and nationhood. His afterword on Bush v Gore shows just how convoluted this argument is. The most conservative justices, most protective of state’s rights and individual freedom vs equality, used an argument that the states only have their rights to manage election by grant of the federal government. The irony is that in most cases progressives would applaud such reasoning.
The primary changes were as follows
From a collective of individuals to a nationhood (greater role of the fed vs states, nationalism with religious fervor).
From Freedom to Equality (dignity)
From Elite Republicanism to Popular democracy (greater expansion of voting rights)
Fletcher’s argument that Lincoln’s Gettysburg address is essentially a preamble to this new con situation, and his line by line analysis of that perfect piece of politically oratory is worth the price of admission. Gettysburg lays forth broad principles that can be expanded on as time goes forward. From there, Fletcher analyses each of the three new pillars - nationhood, equality, popular democracy. While his take on these items generally bends toward the progressive, he acknowledges how they can and have been used
Fletcher’s second major thesis is that this new Constitution essentially had to go underground, bending to the forces that make any radical change hard. Finally, Fletcher argues there has been a gradual, if uneven resurfacing of these ideals. For example, the original civil rights act in the late 1800s after the civil war amendments was struck down as unconstitutional. It was only in the 1960s that this same law was passed again, this time being upheld.
Of course we are still having an existential argument about this new constitution. As Fletcher sees it, the new constitution shifted the position of government from the original constitution - a 3rd party that we must be protected against - to a partner who is responsible from promoting equality, democracy, and nationhood. His afterword on Bush v Gore shows just how convoluted this argument is. The most conservative justices, most protective of state’s rights and individual freedom vs equality, used an argument that the states only have their rights to manage election by grant of the federal government. The irony is that in most cases progressives would applaud such reasoning.
More...