delegates from three other states arrivedrntoo late to participate. In desperation, therndelegates of the five states present submittedrna report to the Confederation Congressrnnoting the failure of all states to attend,rnexpressing the need for “reform” ofrnthe general government, and calling for arnConstitutional Convention in Philadelphiarnthe following May.rnI’he government of the first republic,rnthe Confederation Congress, agreed tornthis proposal and, in 1787, authorized arnConstitutional Convention. But it forbadernthe drafting of a new constitution.rnThe instructions were explicit: Delegatesrnwere gathering “for the sole and expressrnpurpose of revising the Articles of Confederation.”rnVirtually every state governmentrnissued similar instructions to its delegates.rnEqually explicit was Article 13 of thernArticles of Confederation, which declaredrnthat no revision was legally permittedrn”unless such alteration be agreed tornin a Congress of the United States, andrnbe afterward confirmed by the Legislaturesrnof every State.”rnThe delegates ignored their instructionsrnand the constitution they had swornrnto uphold. Instead, they plotted the overthrowrnof the first republic. Like goodrnconspirators, they held their deliberationsrnin secret. Armed sentries were postedrnaround the State House where theyrnmet. Rules were passedrnThat no copy be taken of any entryrnon die journal during the sitting ofrnthe House without leave of thernHouse; That members only be permittedrnto inspect the journal; Thatrnnothing spoken in the House bernprinted, or otherwise published orrncommunicated without leave.rnAnd all loose scraps of papers were to berndestroyed.rnIn a letter to Oliver Ellsworth, delegaternfrom Connecticut, a friend expressed anrnopinion of the Constitutional Conventionrnthat was shared by many Americans:rn”Full of Disputation and noisy as thernWind, it is said, that you are afraid of thernver)’ Windows, and have a Man plantedrnunder them to prevent the Secrets andrnDoings from flying out.”rnThis obsession with secrecy borderedrnon paranoia. When Benjamin P’ranklin,rnthe oldest and (arguably) the most famousrndelegate to the ConstitutionalrnConvention, would attend dinner partiesrnin Philadelphia, flic oflicr delegates had arncolleague accompany him to en,surc thatrnFranklin did not divulge any informationrnof the proceedings to the public.rnIn such a setting of suspicion and isolation,rnthe delegates, motivated by economicrnself-interest as well as pragmaticrnpolitical concerns, illegally drafted a newrnConstitution, which unconstitutionallyrndeclared ratification by oirly nine of thern13 states to be sufficient for its adoption.rnSome delegates, however, raised fundamentalrnquestions of legalit)’ and logic.rnLuther Martin of Maryland challengedrnthe majority:rnWill you tell us we ought to trustrnyou because you now enter into arnsolemn compact with us? This yournhave done before, and now treatrnwith the utmost contempt. Willrnyou now make an appeal to thernSupreme Being, and call on Himrnto guarantee your observance ofrnthis compact? The same you havernformerly done for your observancernof the Articles of Confederation,rnwhich you are now violating in thernmost wanton manner.rnElbridge Gerry of Massachusetts tookrnthe majority’s position on ratification tornits logical conclusion —”if nine out ofrnthirteen can dissolve the compact, Sixrnout of nine will be just as able to dissolvernthe new one hereafter.”rnBy its actions, the Constitutional Conventionrnproved itself to be a conclave ofrnconspirators who betrayed their sacredrnoaths to the constitution of the first republicrnand usurped power. The subsequentrnadoption of the U.S. Constitution,rnand the establishment of the second republic,rnwas achieved by extraconstitiitionalrnmeans. It was a bloodless coup d’etat.rnIt was, in fact, a very civil coup d’etat.rnBut it was a coup d’etat, nonetheless.rnThe second republic, however, didrnshare its predecessor’s ideological convictionrnthat the United States was a compactrnamong sovereign states, which had delegatedrnHmited powers to the government.rnIn the words of Alexander Hamilton, onernof the chief architects of the second republic,rnthe United States would “still be,rnin fact and in theory, an association ofrnStates, or a confederacy.”rnBut the coup d’etat of 1789 set a suicidalrnprecedent. On the same pretext ofrnestablishing “a more perfect union,” thernsecond republic was overthrown by AbrahamrnLincoln when he launched hisrnwar against the South—a war the U.S.rnSupreme Court declared uncon,stitutionalrnin the “Prize Cases” of Decemberrn1862. Lincoln destroyed the federal principlesrnof 1783 and 1789 and replacedrnthem with the ideological foundation forrntoday’s centralized, “welfare-warfare,”rnbureaucratic state.rnTo the degree that American exceptionalismrnever existed, it was as an experimentrnin limited government based onrnthe unique concept of dual sovereigntiesrn—state and federal —embodied in thernArticles of Confederation and PerpetualrnUnion. But that political experimentrnlasted only six years, from 1783 to 1789.rnThe Constitutional Convention did notrncreate American exceptionalism; it destroyedrnit.rnJoseph E. Fallon, author of DeconstructingrnAnienca: Immigration, Nationalityrnand Statehood (Council for Social andrnEconomic Studies, Washington, D.C.),rnwrites from Rye, New York.rnMUSICrnBerlioz:rnA Musical Apotheosisrnby Ralph de ToledanornUntil the advent of the long-playingrnrecord, almost all of the music ofrnHector Berlioz was, for most Americans,rna silent enigma, available only to thosernwho could read a score and really hear it.rnOtherwise reasonable critics wrote of hisrn”half-crazy ideas.” Some argued that hernachieved his effects, both good and bad,rn”by accident.” Grove’s bemoaned hisrnlapses into bad taste and deplored his emphasisrnon “emphasis” rather than “beauty”rn—mystified by the intensity that marksrnhis work. Such “advanced” musicologistsrnas Paul Henry Lang, ex cathedrarnfrom Columbia University, blamedrnBerlioz for being both too tied to pastrnpractices and reaching too far forward intornthe future. And two composers whornowed much to Berlioz, Debussy andrnStravinsky, dismissed him as a “musicalrnmonster” and a “romantic orgiast.”rnI do not hold music critics in the samerneasy contempt that was George BernardrnShaw’s stock-in-trade. But I have found itrnshocking that they should allow non-musicalrnconsiderations to lead them astray.rnMuch of Berlioz’s reputation derivedrnOCTOBER 2001/53rnrnrn