���ϲ�����

The essay, delves into four major themes the books cover, all aimed at renewing interest and zeal for the principles of the U.S. Constitution. Dr. Seagrave tackles such topics as Congressional reform, the issue of race and the Civil War, and the difference between the “capital C” Constitution — the document itself and the ideas it contains — and the “small c” constitution, which includes the cultural mores that expand far beyond the confines of the actual document. 

“It is uncontroversial and incontrovertible to claim that the proper functioning of the American political system as envisioned by the Framers relies on certain cultural prerequisites,” Dr. Seagrave writes, responding to one author’s conflation of the principles of the “capital C” and “small c” constitutions. “What is controvertible, and what I would in fact venture to controvert, is that these prerequisites are primarily derivative from or dependent upon the Constitution itself.” 

An associate professor of civic and economic thought and leadership at Arizona State University, Dr. Seagrave is co-founder and co-director of the Race and the American Story project. He has published four books and countless essays on American political philosophy and is a regular contributor to The Public Discourse. 

In the primary section of his essay, Dr. Seagrave undertakes a discussion of the terms “���DzԲ���Գ�,” “consensus,” and “compromise.” Two of the authors he studies conclude that the latter words embody the political goal of the U.S. Constitution. Dr. Seagrave, however, argues that the founding fathers did not see these two terms in the same light and, in fact, preferred the former word, “consent,” as it more properly aligns with the fundamental rights of man. 

“The founders believed in the principle of consent because they believed in the concept of natural (or 'unalienable') rights,” Dr. Seagrave explains. “It is because individuals possess natural rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness that government can only derive its just powers from the consent of the governed. … The primary meaning of ‘unalienable’ is not that the object in question cannot be taken away, but that it cannot be given up.”