WI Jefferson and Adams were at the Constitutional Convention?

Anaxagoras

Banned
IOTL, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams were absent on diplomatic duties in Europe during the Constitutional Convention in 1787. How might the Constitution been different had the two of them participated in its creation?
 
If Thomas Jefferson had been there and participated in The Constitutional Convention he would probably have put forth and supported constitutional proposals keep The USA largely an agrarian nation. Jefferson believed The USA should forever remain a nation madeup largely of self sufficient yeoman farmers, a nation predominantly of small self sufficient family farms.

Jefferson would have probably proposed that The Constitution expire and be rewritten every 20 years. He believed that all laws, constitutions, and even debts should expire after 20 years so that one generation could not impose its will on future generations. Jefferson believed each generation of Americans must personally experience The American Revolution anew for itself.

In answering this question in terms of Thomas Jefferson's participation I recommend the Book "The Radical Politics Of Thomas Jefferson." It provides fascinating insights into Jefferson's personal political views and philosophy.
 
If Thomas Jefferson had been there and participated in The Constitutional Convention he would probably have put forth and supported constitutional proposals keep The USA largely an agrarian nation. Jefferson believed The USA should forever remain a nation madeup largely of self sufficient yeoman farmers, a nation predominantly of small self sufficient family farms.

Jefferson would have probably proposed that The Constitution expire and be rewritten every 20 years. He believed that all laws, constitutions, and even debts should expire after 20 years so that one generation could not impose its will on future generations. Jefferson believed each generation of Americans must personally experience The American Revolution anew for itself.

In answering this question in terms of Thomas Jefferson's participation I recommend the Book "The Radical Politics Of Thomas Jefferson." It provides fascinating insights into Jefferson's personal political views and philosophy.

That looks like a recipe for chaos.
 
The most TJ would probably have won is that every measure passed by Congress include somekind of pre-determined sunset provision (which most do OTL anyway).

More importantly and substantially, TJ would probably have pressed for the inclusion in the original draft of a Bill of Rights. OTL, his letters during ratification suggest that he supported the 1787 Constitution because it supported the continuance of the Union, but he hoped that once 9 states had ratified it, the remaining four would hold out and demand amendments to create guarantees for personal liberty. OTL, George Mason asked that the Constitutional Convention consider the issue of a Bill of Rights in early September / late August of 1787, but the Convention didn't consider it largely because they'd spent so long at their task already. If TJ is there, he probably joins Mason in pressing for this addition. Perhaps he's really smart and presents a draft of a Bill of Rights which would mitigate the additional time required by the Convention. I find the outcome a fairly open question, since at that time even Madison opposed the idea. TJ might be able to persuade many to his views, which might make passage easier, but would probably entail a much altered Bill of Rights. If TJ fails--always possible--then Ratification will be much harder with the author of the Declaration against the new document.

Another difference that stems from TJ may be a longer Preamble that resembles the first paragraphs of the Declaration. Specifically, phrases about natural rights, government by the consent of the governed, and "nature's god" may be particularly effecacious in producing Constitutional alterations. (OTL, Madison proposed such a Preamble in his original proposals for the Bill of Rights).

John Adams' prescence probably doesn't alter too much. If anything, he may press for more authority for the federal government. It's hard to see how the Convention might have granted more authority, however. Perhaps though it might mean that some of the vague areas of the document were fleshed out, particularly as regards the Cabinet, the scope of Presidential power, and the Judiciary. The one change that might emerge is a provision about the titles of the President. Adams was very keen on the President being styled, "His Excellency, the President of the United States and Protector of their Liberties." Adams also usefully offsets many of Jefferson's attempts to undo the taxing authority of the federal government and such.

The confluence of Adams' unionism/federalism and Jefferson's desire for a Bill of Rights maybe the inclusion of something like a provision to ensure that the states comply with *the Bill of Rights. OTL, Madison's proposed to Congress one article that provided that "No government--whether state or federal--under this Constitution shall make any law or take any action that shall violate the equal rights of conscience, the freedom of the press, or the trial by jury." OTL, Congress didn't support this suggestion because it figured the states might not be too amenable (to say the least). However, this rejection also stemmed from the Federalist argument that the States' Bills of Rights would be sufficient protection. If one side-steps those arguments, then the Philadelphia Convention might have decided that the price of a Bill of Rights was something like this clause. Essentially, this has the effect of including OTL's 14th Ammendment in the Bill of Rights, with the exception that it would probably be in addition to something like our 10th Amendment. Hence, only a specific list of rights would be incorporated against the states. A big bone of contention will likely be whether "rights of property" are included in that list.

Lastly, whatever the effect on the Constitution itself, Adams' and Jefferson's mutual presence at Philadelphia is likely to have also altered the scope of their relationship. Probably it begins their rivalry even sooner. But it may restrain that rivarly from exploding into the all-out partisan warfare of the "Revolution of 1800."
 
Last edited:
I have to wonder if Adams' presence, in concert with Hamilton's influence, might have led to a stronger executive branch? Might there be some way in which the vice-president would have been given specific duties, apart from/instead of those of president of the Senate--e.g., the equivalent of a home secretary, with oversight of domestic departments?
 
I have to wonder if Adams' presence, in concert with Hamilton's influence, might have led to a stronger executive branch? Might there be some way in which the vice-president would have been given specific duties, apart from/instead of those of president of the Senate--e.g., the equivalent of a home secretary, with oversight of domestic departments?

The funny thing is that most likely any attempt to "clarify" the powers of the executive beyond the OTL constitution is likely to reduce the power of the Presidency by removing the vagueness of executive power. For example, specific duties for the VP is likely to curtail the power of the President. Hence, just as TJ's efforts to support a Bill of Rights might provide impediements to state's rights, so to JA's efforts to encourage executive authority might diminish the scope of Presidential power.

I'm also not 100% sure that Adams would necessarily favor a strong executive branch / Presidency; he would certainly favor centralized government, but Adams wasn't an executive until he served as VP. His experience had been as a coalition leader in legislative / deliberative bodies. One would have to consult the Massachusetts' 1780s Constution of which I beleive Adams was the predominant author. Also his 1776 pamphlet on State government.
 

NomadicSky

Banned
If Thomas Jefferson had been there and participated in The Constitutional Convention he would probably have put forth and supported constitutional proposals keep The USA largely an agrarian nation. Jefferson believed The USA should forever remain a nation madeup largely of self sufficient yeoman farmers, a nation predominantly of small self sufficient family farms.

Jefferson would have probably proposed that The Constitution expire and be rewritten every 20 years. He believed that all laws, constitutions, and even debts should expire after 20 years so that one generation could not impose its will on future generations. Jefferson believed each generation of Americans must personally experience The American Revolution anew for itself.

In answering this question in terms of Thomas Jefferson's participation I recommend the Book "The Radical Politics Of Thomas Jefferson." It provides fascinating insights into Jefferson's personal political views and philosophy.

Jefferson had to be a stoner.
 
Top