Online resources have changed the dynamics of research, even in subject areas that deal with the history of a specific period of 250 years ago in which science is not (necessarily) a dynamic, e.g., origins of the Constitution. Excellent resources are available & accessible online. 1/16

Among such resources are Elliott’s Debates, accessible via the Library of Congress. That is a 5-volume set that consists of documents leading up to the 1787 Philadelphia convention, documents from the convention, and documents from the State ratification conventions. 2/16

Yesterday a page for “Wall Builders” popped up during my research. [FN32] That made me stop, read and review. One long post was written by David Barton, a name I recognized and whom the Southern Poverty Law Center (“SPLC”) describes in unflattering terms. [FN33] 3/16

Barton’s post provides examples of the impacts of invalid premises and truncated research. To support his position that an Article V convention should be called, he lists four points with his support for each, to which I shall reply, in order: 4/16

“1. The original Constitutional Convention was not a runaway convention.”
Why this is important: many (including me) have noted that a call for an Article V convention cannot be limited to a single issue, with the 1787 Philadelphia convention as precedent. 5/16

To support this point, Barton asserts:
a) “ the delegates did not ignore their state’s instructions about revising the Articles of Confederation”;
b) “states ratified the Constitution after it was written” & thus “supported what occurred at the Convention”; and,
c) “history also shows that throughout the construction of American government, the states had full control over their delegates.” 6/16

MY REPLY:
a) On 2/20/1787, Congress authorized “a convention of delegates” appointed by the States to meet “for the sole and express purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation” & report to Congress & the legislatures “such alterations and provisions”; [FN34] 7/16

Barton does not cite this language of Congress’s that authorized the delegates to meet and set limits on what they could do: for the “sole [FN35] and express [N36] purpose [N37] of revising [N38] the Articles.” Neither does he assert the convention complied with Article XIII. 8/16

Article XIIII spells out how the Articles of Confederation can be amended: “in a Congress of the United States and be afterwards confirmed by the Legislatures of every State.” The Convention was not Congress. Ratification was by State conventions, not legislatures. [FN39] 9/16

Barton asserts that a State’s “instructions about revising the Articles” were okay, but does not say how those instructions could supersede the resolution that authorized the delegates to act and limited their actions or bypass the requirements for amendment of the Articles. 10/16

That’s a lot for now. I am only part-way through my analysis. 11/16

Footnotes:
FN32. David Barton, “An Article V Convention for the States,” WallBuilders, 5/29/23, accessed 5/26/23. 12/16

FN33. “David Barton has spread the damaging idea that the separation of church and state is a myth. His historical writings have helped provide a respectable veneer for the rise of radical-right religious ideology over the past several decades.” SPLC, accessed 5/26/26. 13/16

FN34. Proceedings [in Congress], 1 Elliott’s Debates pp. 119-20.
FN35. “sole”: “only; single.” The Merriam-Webster Dictionary (1974), p. 654. 14/16

FN36. “express”: “clearly and unmistakably communicated; directly stated.” Id., p. 245.
FN37. “purpose”: “an object or result aimed at.” Id., p. 565. 15/16

FN38. “revise”: “to look over something written in order to correct or improve ... to make a new version of.” Id., p. 600.
FN39. U.S. Const. Art. VII. 16/16