Replies

The article says:
What about the "corruption and deadlock" explanation? Zywicki's analysis shows that, in fact, the corruption was nominal, and infrequent. In addition, he points out that the deadlock problem could have been easily solved by legislation that would have required only a plurality to elect a Senator - a far easier remedy than the burdensome process of amending the Constitution that led to the Seventeenth Amendment.

This I don't agree with. The Railroad interests corrupted State Legislatures leading to a corruption of the Senate to a fairly large extent. Monied interests over-played their hand and got Popularism as revenge. If you start swinging the penduleum, you have to face the motion you start.

The history of the opening of the west must be examined to determine how the economic and politcal forced interacted.

"The Railroad interests corrupted State Legislatures leading to a corruption of the Senate to a fairly large extent. Monied interests over-played their hand and got Popularism as revenge. If you start swinging the penduleum, you have to face the motion you start."

Thanks for the ping. Good article and comments. Whatever the reasons, they are more to the point than the one I've been hearing, that some years the legislatures 'just didn't have time with their busy schedules' [to make the the appointments]. I'd like to study that to find out exactly who was pushing the Amendment, and the details of 'why.' Know of a good starting link?

You and Congressman Billybob are correct. Corruption was the key reason for the change.

But there was an undercurrent that even the author of this piece misses, and it explains the interconnectedness of the 16th & 17th Amendments and even the Pledge of Allegiance.

Two lessons came from the Civil War.

The all-out enforcement of the concept of States' Rights that had ruled since the Jackson Administration was directly responsible for the war. The pendulum had swung so far since the election of 1828 that Lincoln's move toward a definition of greater national sovereignty (in the mold of Hamilton, Clay and Webster) had required the use of armed force.
The requirement that the federal government be able to tax "things" via tariffs and imposts had created a financial imbalance that was an important factor leading to armed conflict. The constitutional ability of the federal government to dun and collect revenue from the states had been thwarted by the states themselves, thanks to Jacksonian interpretations of the law.

A de-emphasis of the states was necessary. Sen. Edward Baker of Oregon had suggested abolishing the states just after Fort Sumter, but his death in 1862 in a botched retreat at Ball's Bluff stilled the voice of what would have been the most radical of all Radical Republicans in the Reconstruction era. While Baker's suggestion went too far, even for Lincoln, the Progressives were interested in finishing the work of Hamilton, Clay, Webster and Lincoln by placing a constitutional emphasis on national sovereignty at the expense of state sovereignty.

The 16th Amendment ended the whole "tariffs and imposts" issue by letting the federal government tax people, not just things. This direct collection of revenue, bypassing the states, created the basis for the ultimate goal of the Progressives, the New Deal.

The 17th Amendment de-emphasized the states in favor of direct democracy. Direct election of senators should be placed historically next to other Progressive goals such as the secret ballot, open primary elections, and initiative, refendum and recall. All these were intended to emasculate the states and lead to direct democracy, rather than a federated republic.

Even the Pledge of Allegiance, a product of the Fabian socialist branch of the Progressive Movement, was created to replace the Constitution with the Flag as our unifying icon. It was all a part of a general thrust in American history, a reaction to the bloodshed of the Civil War.