Analysis Of Danielle Allen's The Flawed Genius Of The Constitution

In Danielle Allen’s article for The Atlantic, “The Flawed Genius of the Constitution,” she explores her opinion regarding the U.S. Constitution through analyzing its origin along with its current standing as a historical document. The Constitution is arguably one of the most fundamental legal documents that continues to define our nation today. However, the foundation of the Constitution and its initial implications have been frowned upon for decades. Two of the most essential aspects of the Constitution, universal suffrage and freedom for all, were not defended by the document upon its initial ratification. As such, to be “in support” of the constitution is a convoluted claim with many connotations; in her article, Allen works to sort through

She takes specific interest in anti-slavery figures such as Adams and Franklin, and how they were involved in the creation of the Constitution. She believed that, although Franklin could have been more outspoken regarding his anti-slavery opinions, she “was in favor of consensus and for burying reservations” so as to promote compromise and true progress (4). Allen is erring on the optimistic side regarding her perspective of Franklin and chooses to believe the best in him and his peers who also aligned in terms of abolishing slavery. I think that Allen is making an extreme assumption; she believes that Franklin, Adams, Wilson and others were all anti-slavery at heart, but instead allowed the Constitution to be ratified without speaking against its faults in order to promote compromise. Allen believes that these men are not letting the nation down by suppressing their opinions throughout the creation of the Constitution, but rather they believe self-government is only possible “through the institutions of constitutional democracy if and only if they prioritize the preservation of those institutions [slavery, for one] over wins in substantive domains of policy” (4). Although this is true, I think it is an oversight to “forgive” these powerful men for staying

The compromise regarding religion is a good one because it is “capacious,” allowing for both those who believe in God and those who do not to agree to the terms of this compromise; the compromise considers all perspectives affected (5). On the other hand, the compromise concerning enslavement did not consider all perspectives. It was at this point when Franklin and others became complicit. In the words of Allen, “Those who knew enslavement was wrong but nonetheless accepted the compromises believed they were choosing a path that would lead inexorably, if incrementally, to freedom for all” (7). Again, as aforementioned, this is an overly optimistic assumption regarding these men in power. Although I am in agreement that these men still had hope that the small changes they were making in the Constitution would lead to larger ones down the line, this does not excuse their lack of opposition during the time of its creation. The so-called “incrementalism” path of progress achieved by the Constitution is, to me, simply an excuse for its