A New Historiography?

Many historians and legal scholars are divided on what the framers’ intention of how the Constitution ought to be interpreted, however, these debates are largely partisan in nature and absent of historical thinking.[1] There is a growing body of historians currently interested in continuing the debate over who ought to be considered a framer of the United States Constitution.[2] In 1955, William Anderson began questioning who should be considered a framer of the Constitution. He quickly concedes that the 39 delegates, regardless of level of engagement have learned the label. But who else? 

​

The goal of my research is an attempt to re-invigorate the research surrounding Anderson's debate from the 50's. Below you will find the original research proposal submitted to Southern New Hampshire University in 2024. This proposal attempts to both: argue for why a new historiography of the Constitution is necessary, and why exploring state ratifying conventions is beneficial in a public history setting.

[1] Howard Schweber, “Continuity and Change in Constitutional Historiography,” Constitutional Change 5 (2019): pp. 141-174.

[2] William Anderson, “The Intention of the Framers: A Note on Constitutional Interpretation,” American Political Science Review 49, no. 2 (June 1955): 340–52, https://doi.org/10.2307/1951807.