Incorrect. It sought to structure a consolidated national government. It left the states intact bowing to political reality.
His vision is found in The Federalist Papers.
Why would you think that public statements designed to sell the plan to voters would be more authoritative than private writings to his allies.
Then again, as they say, the proof is in the pudding, and the results are in.
As for slave trade and religion, those are niceties, but they are not structural. Merely social issues.
Incorrect, yourself. If what you claim was true, the Convention would have sought to dissolve state boundaries and reform them into more efficient provinces. We can go ‘round and ‘round endlessly on this question. Let’s not. You’ve had your shot; I’ve had my riposte.
“Why would you think that public statements designed to sell the plan to voters would be more authoritative than private writings to his allies.”
That’s an uncharitable charge. The same could be leveled at Anti-federalist efforts.
The Supreme Court finds The Federalist Papers definitive. I’ve previously asked you to cite the instances where Washington has came out in opposition to Madison’s 41 and 44, giving quotes and sources. You’ve not responded. Now I must add Madison (post debates). I hope you will respond to both.
“As for slave trade and religion, those are niceties, but they are not structural. Merely social issues.
This is the first time I’ve heard the slave trade and religion described as constitutional “niceties” or “merely” social issues. Up to now they’ve been very big deals to all the Constitution’s enemies.