On the occasion of World Book Day, friends are welcome to come to the live broadcast room to choose the long-favorite triptych good books, slightly flawed products, hundreds of good books, and ultra-low discounts
Welcome to share, like, and watch at the end of the article!
Please leave a message at the end of the article for reprinting
The "long founding moment" in the coordinate system of American history corresponds to the process of the founding of the country in the past 87 years. At the beginning of the Gettysburg Address, Lincoln traces the founding of the country, when the revolutionary forefathers founded the new nation, exactly "four scores and seven years ago." In this sense, the "long", that is, the 87-year span of history, contains a Lincoln perspective, in which a constitutional past from Washington to Lincoln is also curled.
*The article is excerpted from "Eighty-Seven Years: The Creation of America (1776-1863)" (Tian Lei, Joint Publishing Co., Ltd., 2024-3) "Foreword"
A still from the movie "Lincoln".
How to understand the "long founding moment"?
1. "Lengthy"
The "long founding moment" lasted 87 years, from 1776 to 1863, which is not a long time in the political era of the United States.
On July 4, 1776, "the time began." History testifies that on this day, the Continental Congress of North America issued the Declaration of Independence to the world, declaring that the 13 colonies of the former British North America would secede from the imperial matrix and become "free and independent states". Tracing back to its roots, this is the beginning of the birth of a nation, and July 4 is therefore designated as the national day of the United States. After breaking and standing, this nascent community has been searching up and down since then. In the summer of 1787, at the Philadelphia Conference, the revolutionaries created a written constitution in the name of "We the People," not only for themselves, but also for future generations. The new federal government began to function in 1789, and the founders crossed the river by feeling the "constitution" to explore the way to the long-term stability of the country, and they fought for the continuation of this constitutional republic and the transmission of it to future generations. As a concrete historical process, the "long founding moment" ended in 1863. This time was chosen as the completion of the founding of the country in order to pay tribute to Lincoln and maximize the constitutional significance of the Gettysburg Address. On November 19, 1863, on the battlefield of Gettysburg, President Lincoln completed this 272-word speech in less than two minutes, and the reason why these two minutes went down in history is not because it was a model of speech and eloquence, but because Lincoln pointed out the direction of American history in his speech. In the context of the history of the U.S. Constitution, the Gettysburg Address can be described as a resolution on several historical issues of the Constitution since the founding of the country. It put an end to an old era, and a new constitutional order was laid on it.
Therefore, the "long founding moment" in the coordinate system of American history corresponds to the process of the founding of the country in the past 87 years. The use of this concept to divide the history of the American Constitution into generations is not an invention that we pat on the head today, but a conclusion that respects and is faithful to the fait accompli, and it is based on Lincoln's judgment of the cause and cause of the major events of the American constitutional system, and Lincoln's interpretation of the constitutional order he inherited. At the beginning of the Gettysburg Address, Lincoln traces the founding of the country, when the revolutionary forefathers founded the new nation, exactly "four scores and seven years ago." In this sense, the "long", that is, the 87-year span of history, contains a Lincoln perspective, in which a constitutional past from Washington to Lincoln is also curled.
"Long", as a constitutional view of history, is to criticize the Philadelphia miracle theory. Even though the Philadelphia Conference gathered the founding brothers and returned to the scene of history, the birth of a constitution was also a "miracle" at that time. But America's founding was by no means a one-time success in the Battle of Philadelphia. Speaking of constitutional politics, the "summer of 1787" was only the beginning, and as Madison put it in The Federalist Papers, the delegates came up with only a draft of a constitution, and the fate of this constitution, along with the story of Philadelphia, is up to the next time history breaks down.
The Federalist Papers
The Federalist: A Collection of Essays
A few years ago, there was a popular "stone from another mountain" that promoted democracy: "The Miracle of Democracy: 127 Days of the Making of the U.S. Constitution". As a storybook about the constitution of Philadelphia, the book is a popular classic that has influenced generations in the United States, but when it was translated into China, the original title of the book was changed to "The Miracle of Democracy." This adjustment is subtle: it seems that as long as there is "democracy", miracles can grow in 127 days. We stick to the "long" time scale, which is to oppose the above-mentioned "short, flat and fast" 127-day miracle theory. As far as the definition is concerned, to judge whether a country has a constitutional system, we must first measure whether it has formed a fundamental norm that is easily and immutable in its political life, which means that the establishment of any constitutional system must go through the experience of time and stand the test of time. The constitutional system of a big country cannot be achieved quickly if it is to integrate pluralism into one. Therefore, in order to understand the American constitution, it is not enough to talk about the events in Philadelphia and read only the Federalist Papers. From Washington to Lincoln, from founding to reconstruction, from 1776 to 1863, the early constitutional development of the United States constituted a holistic historical vision—without a sense of overarching history, researchers are greedy for one domain, and exploration can easily become blind and identical.
Periodization for the past, for the sake of personnel, this is our way of entering history. In the course of 87 years of history, the constitution has set up the stage, the party has sang, and with the intergenerational rotation and handover of politicians as a clue, we can distinguish three generations one after another, and we can also divide three historical stages by the difference between generations. Here's a little bit of an explanation.
The first generation was the "Founding Brothers" who declared "the time had begun," who were first-hand witnesses to the American Revolution and what Lincoln called "our fathers"—the founding fathers who created the new nation 87 years before him. As far as the military achievements of the revolution and the founding of the country are concerned, the core of the leadership of the first generation is none other than Washington, and in terms of the great cause of drafting the constitution alone, the chief architect is Madison. The way to the founding of the country, also martial arts, we can know after seeing the oil painting "Washington Crossing the River", the general stands on the bow of the ship, the revolutionary soldiers are majestic and high-spirited, and after the war is the constitution, on the stage of the Philadelphia Conference, the real operator is the little man Madison from Virginia, in 1787, he was only 36 years old, but history has entered the "Madison moment". This is the first generation, who launched a revolution, made a constitution, created a state, and in them the revolutionaries, the framers, the founders, were a trinity.
Emmanuel Loitz, Washington Crossing the Delaware River
Collection of the Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York
The second generation began in 1825, a year that seemed uneventful and uneventful, but it was a crucial year in the vision of the "long founding moment". On March 4 of that year, James Monroe of Southern Virginia stepped down as president as scheduled, and was replaced by John Quincy Adams of Massachusetts in the north. Monroe was the first generation to witness the Revolution, looking back on the years of the Revolutionary War, when he rode Washington's saddle and horse, and Adams Jr. was a veritable "second generation," not only in a constitutional sense, but also in terms of blood – it was his father, John Adams, the second president of the United States, who experienced the revolution. In this way, the year 1825 marked the beginning of a new era of constitutionalism in which the second generation of politicians stepped onto the constitutional stage and became the rulers of the country.
In the context of generational succession, the second generation has its own specificity: looking back, they are the first generation to be born Americans. Most of the trendsetters of this generation were born after 1776, and they are the eggs of the stars and stripes, which is unprecedented, and looking to the future, there is another year to celebrate the 50th anniversary of independence, and the appearance of the second generation is staggered with the exit of the first generation. In this sense, the tasks of the second generation in the constitutional arena can be summed up in one word: The founder has passed away, what should we do as the successor? This is the new situation and new task of those who will not come later, and how the second generation chooses at the historical juncture that belongs to them, what banner this generation raises, and what road it takes, will determine the future of the founding constitution of the United States. Henry Clay, John Calhoun, and Daniel Webster, known as the "Great Triumvirate" of the second generation, are also known as the "Heirs of the Founders" on the spectrum of constitutional politics. In the "long founding moment", what the second generation did was to carry on the past and forge ahead into the future.
At the beginning of the second generation, it was the time of farewell. Half a century after the Declaration of Independence, the brothers of the founding generation have long since come to the edge of their lives. In the history of the United States, the real miracle was not in the summer of 1787, but on July 4, 1826, the day of the 50th anniversary celebration of American independence, the day on which Thomas Jefferson and John Adams died. On July 4, 1831, another National Day, James Monroe died--so far, three of the first five presidents of the United States have all passed farewell on National Day, and they have died a glorious death over and over again! What will finally send the founding generation to the altar is not the great deeds established during their lifetime, but their farewell that will make them immortal! Perhaps, the eyes of the world have turned to the old Madison of Virginia, and since 1828, he has been the only living delegate to the Philadelphia Conference. Everyone else is dead, and he's still alive. As he himself lamented in his letter, I "lived longer than myself." Finally, on June 28, 1836, a week to go until the 60th anniversary of independence, Madison saw Jefferson gone—at the end of the administration of a new generation of military presidents, Andrew Jackson.
A facsimile of the original U.S. Declaration of Independence
It was also during this period that Lincoln came—and by 1861, the U.S. Constitution would enter the Lincoln moment. But at this time, Lincoln was just a young man in the western countryside, just beginning to practice law, and he had nothing to do. This vulgar frontier youth, tall, big-eared, with messy black hair, who had not even attended a regular school for a few days, no one would have thought that he was the Founder's Son of the fate of the Republic. But as long as we get through the 87-year history of the "long founding moment", we can find that Lincoln did not fall from the sky in 1861, and then descended from heaven to take on a historical task comparable to Washington. His appearance in American history should be advanced to 1838, when the second generation was in full bloom. Lincoln was a fashionable and dissatisfied year, but he was radiant when he debuted.
In a speech entitled "Our Political System Lives Forever," Lincoln spoke of the mission of his new generation in the 19th century: that the Revolutionary generation was "an oak forest" that had "towered into the sky," but that "silent time" had consumed them, "after the hurricane...... At the historical stage when the founders "passed away and mourned deeply", "our task is only to pass on the national and political edifice to future generations". In this way, Lincoln was born great politically, capturing the fundamental problems facing American constitutional politics in his early years, and in this sense until the Gettysburg Address, Mr. President was still in dialogue with his younger self. In his speech, he asked whether the constitutional republic created by our forefathers, which could be founded by our forefathers, regardless of the north and the south, could survive, and in the end, he gave his life to solve and answer this constitutional question, which has lasted for 87 years. Returning to the context of the "long founding moment", Lincoln, who was born in 1809, represents the third generation.
The first generation (1776-1825), the second generation (1825-1852, when the life of the second generation of the "Great Three" came to an end), and the third generation (1852-1863 or Lincoln's assassination in 1865). Strictly speaking, the division of these three generations is not neat, and for the time being it does not take into account the inevitable overlap between generations, and the current line of thought, if there is any idea, is still based on Lincoln. In his aforementioned 1838 address, the young Lincoln raised the political dilemma that a constitutional republic must face: the farther away from the founding of the state, the weaker the historical memory of the revolution becomes. Lincoln's generational distinction between the three generations conceals Lincoln's historical account of the founding of the country, which is delineated according to the distance of each generation from the moment of revolution: in the first generation, the Revolutionary War was "seen" by the revolutionaries, in the second generation, after the death of the revolutionary, the war became "heard" to the people of today, and in the third generation, these "heard" were further diluted and became "heard" by those who came after.
Personnel have metabolism, and exchanges have become ancient and modern. The people and events of the above three generations together constitute this "long" 87 years.
2. "Nation-building"
"Long" hides a Lincoln perspective, such as his tracing the history of the country on the battlefield of Gettysburg, since the founding father of the country at the beginning of the year, to the "present" more than 87 years. According to the psychological distance from the revolution, this historical itinerary is staggered, and the three generations are in their respective places, one after the other. Not only that, "long" also means that this historical journey is continuous, and there must be a certain "original intention", which is passed on across generations and continues this history. In other words, although each generation has its own historical mission, the three generations are not fighting each other, they have a consistent common pursuit, and it is also because of the struggle towards this goal that the three generations constitute the same "we", and the 87-year historical journey has become a complete and continuous historical stage.
The United States is a "United States," and this "United States" is a constitutional community—the new nation was founded as a written constitution that united the nations, in short, the "United States" itself was a constitutional process. Therefore, in the early constitutional history of the United States, the question of "nation-building" has always been the most fundamental constitutional issue of this new nation, and the exploration of "state" and the interpretation of "law" are also intertwined in this historical stage: the key to answering the question of what kind of community the "United States" is—whether it is a unified and indivisible state, or a union of various localities that still retain ultimate sovereignty, is to clarify the constitutional merits from 1787 to 1788. It is necessary to answer the question of what exactly was created by the framers of the constitution: what kind of country is the "state" and what kind of law is the "law". The "founding of the United States" was originally a long scroll of constitutional stories.
Back in Philadelphia, the framers drafted the Constitution, of course, without a curtain of ignorance, and not a collective retreat to the state of nature to negotiate a social contract. The federal constitution proposed by the Philadelphia Conference was, in the final analysis, a solution forced out at a time when the survival of the community was at stake, and it could be said that it was a "necessary law". In the geopolitical landscape of "Join, or Die," the North American states must unite to achieve their "unity as one" through a single constitution, the crisis and mission of the framers of 1787.
Philadelphia Constitutional Convention, 1787
A little in-depth historical review. The first shots of the Revolutionary War were fired in 1775 and the Eight-Year War ended in 1783. You know, the War of Independence was never fought for the independence of a "United States", and the parchment of the Declaration of Independence bears its full English name: The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America. Don't miss the details, the word "united" is a lowercase, as a precedent adjective, it simply means that the 13 states have united to declare their independence: once we were 13 colonies under the British Crown, but now we are becoming "free and independent states" in our own right. In this sense, the Declaration of Independence is a strategically prioritized diplomatic document that coordinates the timing of the declaration of independence by the 13 states and keeps them in lockstep.
From this moment of independence, the North American continent entered the pattern of "nations". What linked the independent states together was the Articles of Confederation, which came into force in 1781. An analysis of the Articles of Confederation shows that the Confederation, whether in terms of its composition, day-to-day decision-making and operation, or the procedure for amending the Articles of Confederation, is nothing more than a union between states, within the framework of which "each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence" (Article 2 of the Articles of Confederation). Although the Confederacy is called "The United States of America" (Article 1 of the Articles of Confederation), the word "United" here has been capitalized, but it cannot be assumed as the name suggests, and "United States" at this time has not yet been condensed into a "United States". Lexically, it was closer to today's "United Nations," referring to the emergence of a union of states in North America. Therefore, the "Confederacy" is a typical multi-headed structure, it has no government to speak of, and the only permanent body, the "Congress", is not called "Congress" at this time, but at best it is only a coordinating body for the deliberations of the states. It was this weak multi-headed structure that led to the inability of the Confederation to control the states internally and to resist the European powers externally. The failure of the Confederacy, especially the tensions between the states, and the cloud of civil war hanging over the eastern side of the North American continent, made change a political necessity – "change when you are poor" – arguably the background and justification for the 1787 Constitution of the United States.
National Constitution Center, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA
However, the key to whether or not they can "change the way can be achieved" depends on whether the revolutionary military leaders headed by Washington can stand up for the second time, promote the great alliance of states in the constitutional structure, put an end to the pattern of nations that appeared in the eastern part of the North American continent after the war, and condense the multi-headed "confederation" into a "united states." In this regard, the first successful step towards nation-building must first be to change the Order of the Confederation and replace it with a new constitution that unites all states, that is, nation-building. If there was a miracle in Philadelphia, it was the miracle that the delegates did it: after a hot debate in the heat of the summer, they actually came up with a draft constitution and forwarded it to the Confederate Conference for separate consideration by the states—and the ratification of the nine states would bring the new constitution into effect, as required by Article VII of the draft. As long as we connect the two stages of drafting and ratification, then the birth of the Philadelphia Constitution is a political process of "nine new states". The Confederation was only a federation, and in the era of the Confederation, the states were still independent states in the Union, but any state that expressed its intention to agree to the draft constitution meant that the state voluntarily renounced its previous full sovereignty, and after the constitution came into force, it would become a state within the federal community. In other words, the first phase of the "united as one" constitutional process has completed once the new constitution has come into force and the new federal government has begun to function. The revolutionary nature of 1787, the rejection of the confederation system by the founding constitution, is also manifested here. Don't forget that, according to the preamble to the Constitution, it was the words "We the people" and not "Our States" that made the Constitution.
But the problem is that the Philadelphia Constitution is not the best picture on a blank sheet of paper. The new federal constitution is not a copy of any European-style political theory in the United States, and it must be investigated, and the "universal republic" discussed by Madison, the father of the Constitution, in the 10th chapter of the Federalist Papers, is precisely a reaction against the classical European doctrine. Since the constitution is forced out and has to be so, what really determines the constitutional plan is not only the principle, but also the compromise. If the constitution is to be the broadest possible consensus, inclusive of pluralism as one, and united by the large and small states, the North and the South, slavery and liberty, all under one fundamental law, it is necessary to make compromises, make concessions on issues of principle, and, if necessary, even retreat in great strides. The protection of slavery was an example, and although later generations saw it as the original sin of the nation, the Southern states would never have been able to join the Union without this compromise in the first place. In this sense, the necessary compromise is the norm in the constitutional moment, necessary for political unity and constitutional stability. Here, if we look at the outcome of the Philadelphia Conference process aside, the conclusion is that the founding constitution was formed by compromise, and therefore contains compromise within its text. In other words, this founding text is not pure, but mixed, and there are contradictions in the text that are opposed in unity. For example, the seven-article text of the 1787 Constitution recorded the victory of nationalism and was included in the Federalists' founding program, but the first ten amendments, which were then added in a package in 1789, were a self-defensive counter-attack of statehood, a resurrection of the anti-Federalists. American scholars have the so-called "two founding states," which refers to the positive and negative, one advance and one retreat, which coexist at the source of the constitution almost in no particular order. In this sense, although 1787 was a new beginning, the first year of constitutionalism, it did not and could not truncate history, the Federalists could not talk about their triumphant progress, and the genes of the old Confederation were still preserved in the new constitution. In a word, compromise means that the new constitution did not carry out the Federalist revolution and its state-building program to the end, and that the founding of the country was incomplete and fell somewhere between revolutionary and conservative.
A still from the movie "Lincoln".
Because of the incompleteness of the constitution of 1787, the new constitutional system presented itself as a kind of "mixed government", although it was called a "federation", but no one knew what the new "federation" was, and the road was under their feet - perhaps, this is the problem that all the great creators had to face, they were creating something that had never been done before, they were creating something that was not in the dictionary, and practice was at the forefront of expression at this time. Since the revolution has occurred, it means that the constitutional system, known as the "Federation", is new, and it constitutes a negation of the old Confederation framework, but no compromise is not enough to make a constitution, and the new constitutional system is not a simple application of any national principle, and Madison's initial constitutional scheme has undergone repeated compromises and has long been unrecognizable. The old and the new coexist, and this "federal" constitutional system became what Madison called a "complex." At the time, people didn't know what it was, only what it wasn't, and it was no longer a confederation, but it wasn't a complete state — and it wasn't until Lincoln and the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution behind him that the political coffin of what a Union was. Prior to that, statehood was still in progress.
The problem arises from this, in the long period of statehood, although it has been "united into one", it has not been "fixed on one". In other words, the new constitution has united the states into a single "United States," but how to interpret this aggregated "United States" as "one" has become the most fundamental constitutional issue after the constitution was established. The constitutional community of "United States", whether it is singular or plural, whether it is united or plural, whether it is united or pluralistic (States) was left open at the beginning of the founding of the country. In this context, "we the people" made this constitution, but where are the "people"? Has this political subject razed the boundaries of the states of the age of the nations, or is it still represented by the states in which they are located? What is the 1787 Constitution? Is it the fundamental and superior law of a country, or is it a contract between the states? and who is the ultimate authoritative interpreter of this law? Is it the Supreme Court as a federal agency and therefore on behalf of the whole, or is it the states that are parties to the contract? In the long history of nation-building, there has never been a uniform standard answer to these constitutional questions, and there has never been a single answer. The reason is simple: within the constitutional order of the founding of the country, these problems themselves are unsolvable. Tracing back to the roots, the seeds of disagreement in later generations were planted as early as the moment of the constitution. Why did Madison, as the father of the Constitution, not only write the "Federalist Papers" after Philadelphia, justifying the name of the broad republic constructed by the Constitution, but also transformed himself ten years later, writing the "Virginia Resolution", which directly pointed out the tyranny of the Union? In this regard, scholars have the theory of "two Madisons", the change from statism to statehood is earth-shaking in our eyes today, but in the founding constitutional order, in Madison's case, it is only a time change, and the grasp of the father of the Constitution has shifted from "one side" to "the other" That's it, Madison's "two hands" in different political periods.
To understand the founding of the constitutional order, we must go back to before Lincoln and open up the political space that had long been closed by Lincoln's decision. Returning to the scene of history, Madison can play two roles and broaden the perspective of history, and Madison's two characters represent the two routes that run through the early constitutional history. In the view of the statists, who were Federalist and upheld the revolutionary character of 1787, the Philadelphia Constitution constituted an indivisible nation, the new constitutional system was based on the sovereignty of the people, "we the people" were one across state boundaries, and the ultimate authority to interpret the Constitution rested with the Supreme Court, not because it was in charge of justice, but because it represented the whole. In contrast to this is the vein of statesalism, which is inherited by the anti-Federalists. The doctrine of statehood is also known as the "contract theory" because they understand the founding constitution as a "contract", so sovereignty is in the state, and the authority to interpret the constitution is also in the state. In the face of history, the state-rights activists clung to the conservative side of 1787.
Looking back at this period of history after a century and a half, politically party disputes have emerged one after another, "a wave has not subsided, and a wave has invaded again", in order to settle the dispute, or to settle the situation, politicians seek the true meaning of the constitution of the founding of the country, and respond to and try to solve the current political struggle with the method of the founder. There are many kinds of problems, and the first line, whether the specific political struggle revolves around the national bank, inland infrastructure, presidential power, slavery and its expansion, or whatever, is ultimately a struggle between the two lines. In other words, as long as the debate over the course is still undecided, the only way to deal with specific policy differences is to seek compromise without breaking the constitutional framework. For this reason, when reading American history, the most common thing before the outbreak of the Civil War was compromise. Big compromises, small compromises, compromises...... The second-generation statesman, Henry Clay, was also Lincoln's political icon, a "Great Compromiser." The great reason why the compromise is great is that it delays the crisis by delaying the decision, allowing the two lines to love and kill each other and fight without breaking within the constitutional system of the founding of the country, forming a constitutional culture and tradition of seeking unity through struggle.
But the great crisis is looming. Lincoln foresaw early on the tragedy that could unfold in the founding constitution, as he put it in 1858: "a house divided against itself cannot stand"—the traditional division within the founding constitutional order, and the literal rhetoric of constitutional interpretation alone, no matter how genius, ultimately cannot justify who is right and who is wrong, and who is fighting on the battlefield. From the "interposition" doctrine of 1799 to the "Ification doctrine" of 1832, the states-rights activists used the southern states as a base to test the limits of the separation of powers that could be tolerated by the constitutional system of the state-building, and finally in 1860, after Lincoln was elected the sixteenth president of the United States, the slave states took a step beyond the thunder pool by declaring their "secession" to form the Confederate.
The next story of the movie "Lincoln" stills, the key word is "civil war and reconstruction", such as Lincoln's second presidential inaugural address in 1865 to look back on four years ago, "So, the war came", one side wanted to kick out the constitution to fight for independence, provoke a war to destroy the country, and the other side suppressed the rebellion in the name of the constitution, and responded to the war to protect the country. After four years of Civil War and the United States became a "nation of suffering," Lincoln was tasked with the task of explaining the constitutional line of nationalism at a time when the North and South were divided. He was both the inheritor of the founding tradition and the guide of constitutional change. Less than a week after the end of the Civil War, President Lincoln was assassinated, but "some people died, but he was still alive", behind Lincoln, the people appeared, the constitutional amendment power was initiated, and in just five years, three constitutional amendments were written into the Constitution, numbered 13, 14, and 15, collectively known as the "Reconstruction Amendment". With the Fourteenth Amendment at its core, the so-called "reconstruction" was embodied in the constitutional structure of the re-republic, which enshrined the doctrine of statism, and since then, stateism has been in ruins as a constitutional line. As Lincoln declared in the Gettysburg Address to his country and the world that the government of the whole people would "last forever." In the logic of constitutional politics, the constitutional system of the United States would end, and the long period of nationhood would come to an end.
……
Eighty-Seven Years: The Creation of America (1776-1863) Tian Lei Author Life, Reading, and New Knowledge Joint Bookstore 2024-3ISBN: 9787108077790 Price: 60.00 yuan
The founding of the United States in 1776 and Lincoln's Gettysburg Address as the 16th president in 1863, as well as the political struggles and debates on the Constitution over the past 87 years, as well as the different efforts made by different political figures at different times, are the main objects of discussion in this book. The author sorts out the ins and outs of the formation of the system in the depth of history, realistically shows the choices of various forces at major historical junctures, and organizes a discussion on the creation of the United States without ignoring the accidents and complexities in the historical itinerary.
In terms of basic standpoint, the author abandons the theory of the "miracle of democracy" of the American constitution that has influenced the Chinese academic community, and at the same time, reflecting on the path of the rule of law in the United States through the historical path will help to dispel the halo that we once weaved for the American model.
Light up the "star" ↓
Receive the "Triple Book Love" push message as soon as possible
—END—
to buy triptych books
Triptych News|March 2024