How the U.S. Constitution was hijacked in the late 1800’s by scholars who subscribed to the German State Theory
Listening to a lecture recently by Dr. Will Morrisey of Hillsdale College, I heard that the American progressivism movement grew out of something called The German State Theory. The theory was initially published in 1875 by a Swiss jurist named Johann Kasper Bluntschli, and was adopted by the German education community.
According to Dr. Morrisey, numerous American scholars went to Germany in the late 19th century for advanced study. Some bought into the theory, which held that governments evolve, and presumably mature with age. Because Germany was deemed to be mature relative to young America, the believers returned home with their doctorates and disdain for our constitution, to become professors in our institutions of higher learning.
I was skeptical. If that were true, wouldn’t we all know about it? We would also know that within a few decades, Hitler and the Third Reich would have proved it was so much malarkey.
I did some independent research and concluded that Dr. Morrisey was correct. Two world wars followed by the cold war, spanning most of the 20th century, obliterated these events from the national conscience. Scholars such as Dr. Morrisey write books about them, but they are primarily read by other scholars.
I made a decision to spend the rest of my life, to the extent feasible, producing a documentary of this and related American history, and delivering it to America’s youth. I founded US Constitution Project, Inc. and got it blessed by the IRS as a 501(c)(3).
To learn how widespread ignorance of these facts is, we decided to conduct a survey. Iasked my LinkedIn connections and my current and former project management students to participate. According to guidelines published by the Roper Center for Public Opinion Research at the University of Connecticut, our sample of 242 participants should yield a margin of error of no more than about 7%. If the sample is biased, it is biased in favor of conservatism (my LinkedIn connections) and working individuals (project management students).
The survey consisted of five statements, with three multiple-choice responses for each: Y=Yes I knew that; N=No I didn’t know that and X=I don’t believe that. To prevent ‘stuffing the ballot box’, we allowed just one entry per IP address.
Survey statement 1 incorporated the initial fact from Dr. Morrisey’s Lecture: During the latter part of the 19th century, many American scholars studied in Germany for advanced degrees, and became believers in something called the ‘German State Theory’. That theory held that the governments progress over time, thus the term ‘progressive‘. As America was perceived to be new relative to mature Germany, some of these scholars returned home with their doctorates and disdain for the US Constitution, to become leaders in our institutions of higher learning.
Results: Y=24%, N=58%, X=18% and N+X=76% – More than three-quarters of all who participated in the survey were as ignorant as I.
Examples of scholars who studied in Germany and became progressive educators were (a) Frank Johnson Goodnow, who attended the University of Berlin and subsequently became President of Johns Hopkins University, and (b) Ira Remsen, who attended The University of Göttingen and was subsequently on the faculty of Johns Hopkins.
Survey statement 2 focused on the period commonly called the Progressive Age: Beginning with the presidencies of Theodore Roosevelt (Republican) and Woodrow Wilson (Democrat), American government has included individuals who held two distinctly different philosophies – some subscribe to our Constitution and others to progressive doctrines.
Results: Y=60%, N=26%, X=14% and N+X=40% – A substantial majority of the participants knew this to be true. One of the X participants wrote me afterward, arguing that while there may have been differences at one time, all of today’s government officials subscribe to the Constitution. One of the progressive philosophies introduced by Wilson that often results in 5 to 4 Supreme Court decisions is the notion of an evolving constitution. Concerning the Constitution, Wilson wrote ‘The trouble with the theory is that government is not a machine, but a living thing. It falls, not under the theory of the universe, but under the theory of organic life. It is accountable to Darwin, not to Newton.’ Because it is difficult to amend the Constitution, progressives cling to the notion that it is a living constitution, subject to interpretation.
Survey statement 3 fared poorly: Progressives generally do not subscribe to the concept of inalienable rights (Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness), as set forth in our Declaration of Independence. They believe that only governments can grant rights to its citizens. Woodrow Wilson was very explicit about this, and advised that readers of the Declaration should skip that paragraph.
Results: Y=31%, N=38%, X=31% and N+X=69% – There can be no disputing that Wilson advised skipping the paragraph in the Declaration. Most progressives are more subtle than Wilson was on this topic. These personal rights do not require laws to enforce them; they are granted by “nature and nature’s God.” To enjoy them, we must be left alone. Few people are ‘left alone’ by the current progressive administration. Indeed, Wilson wrote in The New Freedom that “freedom today is something more than being let alone. The program of a government of freedom must in these days be positive; not negative merely.” That same thought was echoed by Barack Obama in a radio interview in 2001.
We have a recent demonstration of Survey statement 4: Progressive doctrine holds that the public at large is insufficiently intelligent to practice democracy. Experts must write laws, and if necessary need not share information with the public nor even with the Congress.
Results: Y=41%, N=30%, X=29% and N+X=59% – Herbert Croly, founding editor of New Republic Magazine, wrote “The national advance will always be impeded by these misleading and erroneous ideas, and what is more, it always should be impeded by them, because at the bottom ideas of this kind are merely an expression of the fact that the average American individual is morally and intellectually inadequate to a serious and constant conception of his responsibilities as a democrat.” Excerpted from The Promise of American Life, 1909, page 276.
Dr. Jonathan Gruber. Obamacare ‘expert’, said ‘This bill was written in a tortured way to make sure CBO did not score the mandate as taxes. If CBO scored the mandate as taxes, the bill dies. OK? . . . . Lack of transparency is a huge political advantage. And basically, call it the stupidity of the American voter or whatever, but basically that was really, really critical to get the thing to pass.” From a 2013 video, explaining why a lack of transparency was essential to the passing of Obamacare. Further quoting Woodrow Wilson, “Those who are to be charged with ‘adjusting’ government to the evolving demands of history must be sufficiently educated and expert both to see what history demands and to know the proper means for adjusting government accordingly.”
Survey statement 5 relies heavily on Woodrow Wilson and the Roots of Modern Liberalism by Dr. Ronald J. Pestritto, now with Hillsdale College: From the time Wilson was a graduate student until he became U.S. president, his published writings were in effect a one-man constitutional convention. He argued against the separation of powers and pronounced that the risk of tyranny is a thing of the past.
Results: Y=26%, N=50%, X=24%, and N+X=74% – Among Wilson’s earlier writings, as a student, is a religious series that includes the title Christ’s Army. Pestritto’s interpretation of Wilson’s religion is summarized in these words: “The final victory of good over evil is not something that transcends the earthly regime; instead, God uses human history to bring about the triumph of good here on earth, in the form of the ideal state at the end of history.” He directly quotes Wilson: “Thus the battle of life progresses and the army of Saints ever gains ground under divine generalship.” Wilson’s dispute with the separation of powers is found in The New Freedom, an edited collection of his campaign speeches: “No living thing can have its organs offset against each other, as checks, and live.” Wilson’s views over time varied from:
(b) A Congress-centric government. A problem he saw was the “decentralized clash of interests” in Congress, which appeared to be at odds with his religious (progressive) belief that such diversity had ceased to exist in the United States.
(c) A President-centric government. The President must interpret the spirit of the age, and in so doing must bring along not only the other institutions of government but also the people themselves. Quoting Wilson, the president will be “a man . . . who has the personality and the initiative to enforce his views both upon the people and upon Congress.”
Summarizing the survey and its results; The results of Statement #2, dealing with the progressive movement and its departure from the Constitution, is a significant exception among the five statements. That is, a majority of participants reported that they knew that. Even so, a significant percentage still do not believe it. A majority ranging from 59% to 76% of participants were not aware of the facts of the other four statements. We believe this is a fundamental issue accounting for the election and re-election of Obama and the current direction of the country. We believe that it confirms the urgent demand for the documentary, The Hijacking of America.
These rules and guidelines have been established for production of the
documentary:
- It must be accurate. This writer is not an authority on these issues, and I invited Dr. Will Morrisey to participate for the primary purpose of assuring the integrity of the documentary. He agreed, and he reviews everything that is done. While other comparable scholars have not as yet been recruited, there are numerous known qualified and like minded scholars, some of whom we believe would be willing to contribute.
- We must recruit script writers who can dramatize the story to capture and hold the attention of America’s youth.
- We must recruit qualified youths as narrators.
- We must engage qualified production firms. We recruited a qualified producer for the following introductory video, who remains available to us.
Distribution of The Hijacking of America. We plan to establish independent associates throughout the United States who will serve as ambassadors, to deliver our documentary to American youth. See the introductory video for more details. There are multiple like-minded organizations with wide-spread membership that we believe will assist in finding these volunteers, including Tea Parties and a variety of service organizations such as Rotary International. The distribution plans need to be further qualified as follows:
- It is premature to undertake this step, as we need to have substantial production in hand so that candidate ambassadors can see and understand the project, and
- This is not a one-time activity. Progressivism has been metastasizing for 135 years. The need for the documentary The Hijacking of America will continue well into the future, no doubt beyond the lifetime of the initial participants.
————-
Readers interested in learning more about the U.S. Constitution Project or the The Hijacking of American project should contact Norris S. Goff, the Founder and President of US Constitution Project.
