THE TEXTUALITY OF THE CONSTITUTION AND THE ORIGINS OF ORIGINAL INTENT A Dissertation Presented to the Faculty of the Graduate School of Cornell University In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy by Simon Joseph Gilhooley January 2014 © 2014 Simon Joseph Gilhooley ! THE TEXTUALITY OF THE CONSTITUTION AND THE ORIGINS OF ORIGINAL INTENT Simon Joseph Gilhooley, Ph. D. Cornell University 2014 In this dissertation, I engage issues associated with the particular nature of the American Constitution, seeking why and how Americans have come so strongly to identify with the Constitution as a text, and with the framers of that document as authors of that text. This identification remains a central part of American political culture, placing limits upon what is ideologically permissible within the polity. Examining newspapers accounts, I trace the historical origins of the close association of the American Constitution with its “framers” – an idea that has currency through popular constitutional interpretation via “framer intent.” I locate the genesis of this idea within three ideational environments within the early American Republic. These are (1) the emergence of the Author figure as a method of ordering texts, (2) the veneration of the founders and their association with the Constitution, and (3) the divergence of legal and non-elite constitutional interpretations. Each of these developmental strands contributed in forming a constellation within which claims of framer intent could come to carry weight. The final component of the dissertation explores the culmination of these processes within the debates over abolition with the District of Columbia in the 1830s, and the resultant turn to constitutional understandings predicated upon beliefs as to the framers’ intentions rather than the text of the Constitution. iii!!! ! ! BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH The author was born in London, UK. He attended Edinburgh University, and graduated with a Master of Arts degree in Modern History and Politics in 2003. He subsequently completed a Master of Arts in United States Studies from the University of London in 2005. He began doctoral studies in Government at Cornell University in 2006. He received the Master of Arts degree from Cornell University in 2010. The following publication was a result of work conducted during doctoral study: “The Framers Themselves: Constitutional Authorship during the Ratification,” American Political Thought 2:1 (2013) iv! ! ! ! ! For my grandparents. v!! ! ! ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Writing a list of acknowledgements for this project is difficult. The full list of debts is too great to commit to paper, but I hope to do at least the most important ones some justice here. The debt of thanks that I owe to my dissertation committee is an important place to start. Collectively, they have assisted and supported me throughout this project and as a final product its strengths and successes are as much theirs as mine. Moreover, in each case their own work has framed my understanding of American history and its relationship to political thought. Without this, my own project would be significantly different. Their contribution reaches beyond the project itself however, for each member has been an important figure in my development as a scholar. I came to Cornell after reading Isaac Kramnick’s introduction to the Federalist Papers. He is the model of a democratic teacher and scholar. In the classroom, his willingness to ask students what they think and to discover political texts anew is both inspiring and humbling. But it is in his humanity in the broadest sense that his influence upon me has been profound. In demonstrating care for his students as people as well as scholars, for the institutions in which we inhabit, and for the role of the university in the community, he personifies the type of academic I would hope to become. He has taught us the lore of Cornell as no one else could, and encompass all the very best tendencies of the “heathens on the hill.” Jason Frank’s infectious excitement for political theory was evident from the very first class I took with him. As he leapt from his chair in response to complex democratic theory, I wondered if there was not something I was missing – but at the same time wanted in on it! Over the course, and in the subsequent years, I have gained an ever deepening appreciation of democratic theory – and theory more generally – as he has pushed me to be a better political theorist. His willingness to continually nudge me towards more rigorous analysis has improved my work, as has his example as a scholar. I regularly turn to his work to see how he dealt with an issue, only to find it is inevitably with insight and clarity. As his roster of dissertation committees grows with every year, I will always be honored to have been the first that he co-chaired. Elizabeth Sanders has taught me more about American politics than anyone else, to the point where I feel positively ignorant about my own nation’s political life in comparison. Her knowledge of political history is breathtaking, and I leave every conversation with a mental note to look up that event or this person lest my ignorance shows next time. But it is her mentorship that has meant most to me. During the first year of the PhD I wondered whether I had the stuff of an academic, but it was her encouragement and faith that kept me going. I learnt a tremendous amount about American politics, but also about myself, in her survey course. Her generosity of time is a blessing for any mentee, and I owe no insignificant part of my dissertation funding to her willingness to edit the applications word-by-word. vi! ! ! ! ! Richard Bensel’s rapid and extensive comments are the gratification and bane of all his students. I have come to recognize the arrival of an email containing the phrase “as you see” as a moment of elation and anticipation, keen to find out what he thinks, but worried about how from the path I have stumbled. But as an interlocutor he is incisive, challenging, and always correct and fair – his textual input alone has vastly improved the dissertation. But he, as with the other members of the committee, has contributed far more than written comments. He has guided me through my development as a young academic, recommending next steps, people to reach out to, and talking down my fears. Not without reason have graduate students dubbed him Obi-Wan Kenobi. He has also shown faith in me, and instructed me on the study of political history both through opening a course in historical methods and allowing me to assist him in his own research. For these glimpses into the inner sanctum I am truly grateful. These comments do little justice to my committee’s contribution, but I hope they give some flavor of the deep debts I owe them. Over the years, I have learnt the inside of their offices well – and for this I will always be grateful. Beyond my committee, Cornell University has also afforded me opportunities and resources for which I am indebted. I was fortunate to be admitted alongside an incredible cohort, whose support, comradeship, and willingness to challenge each other helped us all. Alongside this cohort, other colleagues at Cornell have been instrumental in making it a great place to be a student. In no particular order, I particularly want to thank Jaimie Bleck, Michael Miller, Chris Casillas, Deondra Rose, Maria Sperandei, Pablo Yanguas, Don Leonard, Phillip Ayoub, Igor Logvinenko, Berk Esen, Simon Velasquez, Janice Gallagher, Benjamin Brake, Julie Ajinkya, Chris Zepeda-Millán, and Steve Nelson. The lack of a name does not denote a lack of thanks. I’ve also been fortunate to be part of an amazing group of young political theorists while at Cornell. The Political Theory Workshop and the courses in the Department have been opportunities to learn from them, and have made me a better theorist. They have also heard my dissertation presented more times than can be good for an individual, and have continually offered important challenges and suggestions. It is a stronger work for it. I have also benefitted from socializing with such a group, which in the depths of an Ithaca winter cannot be overvalued. Again, in no order, I wish to particularly acknowledge Simon Cotton, Onur Ulas Ince, Sinja Graf, Nolan Bennett, Desmond Jagmohan, Michelle Smith, Vijay Phulwani, Sven Greune, Pınar Kemerli, Leila Ibrahim, Alison McQueen, Kyong Min Son, Murad Idris, and Aaron Gavin. Other Cornell faculty have also been important for me during my time here. In this vein, Michael Jones-Correa, Suzanne Mettler, Peter Enns, Christopher Anderson, Alexander Livingston, and Anna Marie Smith deserve particular mention. Aziz Rana should be on this list in his own right, but an additional thanks is due to his willingness to perform the role of outside reader for this project. vii!! ! ! ! It is not only faculty at Cornell that made this project possible. Without Tina Slater, the Department of Government’s graduate students would be lost. Her willingness to guide us through the administrative processes of gaining a PhD, ensure that we keep the right side of the Graduate School’s regulations, and make us aware of the presence of cookies in the lounge is a godsend. This dissertation has spread beyond Cornell University and Ithaca, and so debts of gratitude are due further afield a well. For material support I am grateful to the Pennsylvania Historical Society, the Library Company of Philadelphia, the McNeil Center for Early American Studies, the Gilder-Lehrman Institute of American History, and the Institute for Political History. Access to historical sources has made this research possible, and so I am grateful to the New-York Historical Society, the New York Public Library, the American Philosophical Society, the Library Company of Philadelphia, the Pennsylvania Historical Society, and the University Libraries of Pennsylvania and Cornell for allowing me to make use of their special collections.