Why you should become a Bible-believing anarchist
who also believes the universe was created around 4004 B.C.
Here is the full title of Charles Darwin's famous book from 1859:
On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection,
or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.
William Jennings Bryan understood the implications of the key words in Darwin's title, and believed that there was a conflict between Darwinism and Christianity:
Bryan resigned as President Woodrow Wilson's Secretary of State because Bryan opposed U.S. entry into World War I, and Bryan knew that Wilson was lying America into a horrific and unnecessary war.
Bryan was right and Wilson was wrong, one of America's worst Presidents, contrary to what you were probably taught in public school.
President Wilson, beginning during his academic career, worked to replace the U.S. Constitution with an entirely different form of government, which is called "Administration," or "The Administrative State."
Question: Can an intelligent article be written in good faith arguing that Woodrow Wilson's 1887 article "The Study of Administration" was calling for the repeal of the older Constitutional system of government (1787) and replacing it with a new system called "The Administrative State?"
ChatGPT:
- Yes — and not only can such an article be written, it could be quite compellingly argued with careful scholarship and textual evidence. Let’s unpack why.
1. Context of Wilson’s “The Study of Administration” (1887)
Woodrow Wilson’s essay was not just an abstract call for better management. It was an open critique of the Founders’ separation-of-powers model, which he considered obsolete in the face of industrialization and modern social complexity. Wilson believed the “science of administration” should replace the older, “mechanical” checks and balances system derived from the 18th century.
He wrote that the Constitution was designed for “simple” times, but new circumstances required a new philosophy of governance: expert, hierarchical, and executive-driven. That premise already implies a repudiation of the Founders’ constitutional framework as adequate for modern governance.
2. Wilson’s Explicit Critiques of the 1787 System
Wilson’s own words provide ample ammunition for the thesis that he sought to supersede the Founders’ system:
He called the U.S. Constitution a “political structure” unsuited for the new age, where administration “cannot be mended by mere tinkering.”
He lamented that the Founders were “in love with the theory of checks and balances,” which “crippled” effective governance.
He urged a new administrative order where trained experts, not elected officials, would direct national policy through rational management rather than political bargaining.
This represents not a mere reform within constitutional bounds, but a philosophical shift toward bureaucratic sovereignty: law executed, interpreted, and even effectively made by administrative experts.
3. The Conceptual Replacement: “Administration” vs. “Constitutionalism”
Wilson’s political theory redefined legitimacy.
For the Founders (1787), legitimacy derived from popular consent channeled through separated powers.
For Wilson (1887), legitimacy came from efficiency, expertise, and evolutionary adaptation.
He consciously drew on German historicism and Hegelian progressivism, claiming government was a “living thing” that “changes with society’s needs.” This organic metaphor is antithetical to the Founders’ idea of fixed constitutional limits. Hence, the argument can be made that Wilson’s “Administration” was not a continuation of the Constitution but its evolutionary replacement—a kind of soft revolution.
4. Scholarly Reinforcement
Modern scholars—especially in political theory and constitutional law—have recognized this transformation:
John Marini and Ronald J. Pestritto (Hillsdale College) explicitly frame Wilson as the intellectual father of the Administrative State, whose ideas “displaced the Founders’ constitutionalism.”
Paul Moreno, in The Bureaucratic Leviathan, traces the line from Wilson’s administrative theory to New Deal agencies that bypassed Congress.
Even sympathetic historians like Nicholas Henry note that Wilson “sought to separate administration from politics,” which inevitably created a new, quasi-sovereign bureaucratic class.
5. Framing the Argument in Good Faith
To make the article “intelligent and in good faith,” it should:
Acknowledge Wilson’s good intentions (efficiency, anti-corruption, professionalization).
Avoid caricaturing him as consciously subversive; instead, show that his assumptions—especially his evolutionary and technocratic premises—logically entail the displacement of constitutional rule.
Demonstrate continuity: the Administrative State that emerged from Wilson’s ideas functionally repealed the Constitution’s design, even if not by formal amendment.
6. A Possible Thesis Statement
“In ‘The Study of Administration,’ Woodrow Wilson laid the theoretical groundwork for replacing the fixed constitutional republic of 1787 with an adaptive administrative regime grounded in expertise and evolutionary progress. Though not framed as a repeal of the Constitution, Wilson’s administrative philosophy effectively redefined the locus of sovereignty—from the people and their representatives to a permanent class of professional administrators.”
- Wilson’s rejection of the 1787 Constitution was not merely pragmatic but philosophically grounded in 19th-century German thought, which he absorbed firsthand during his graduate training.
Here’s how that section could read in an intelligent, good-faith article:
II. Wilson’s German Sources: The Birth of “Administration” as a Substitute for “Constitution”
When Woodrow Wilson published “The Study of Administration” in 1887, he was fresh from an academic environment steeped in German historicism and Hegelian political philosophy. The American universities of the late 19th century—particularly Johns Hopkins, where Wilson earned his Ph.D.—were consciously modeled on the German research university system of Berlin, Heidelberg, and Göttingen. Wilson studied under professors who had themselves been trained in Germany, and his political theory bears the unmistakable imprint of that intellectual tradition.
1. The German Context: State over Constitution
In German thought of the mid-19th century, the State (der Staat) was not seen as a contractual creation of the people, as in Anglo-American constitutionalism, but as an organic, ethical unity that evolved historically.
G.W.F. Hegel had written that the State is “the march of God in the world”—a living embodiment of the moral order.
The Rechtsstaat tradition that followed treated law as the rational will of the State rather than a limit upon it.
Thinkers like Lorenz von Stein and Johann Caspar Bluntschli, whom Wilson read, developed the concept of public administration (Verwaltungswissenschaft) as a science of the State itself—not a servant of constitutional boundaries but an expression of the State’s rationality.
To such minds, government was not a machine bound by fixed checks and balances but a living organism requiring professional, hierarchical direction.
2. Wilson’s Studies and the “Science of Administration”
Wilson admired this German model and urged Americans to imitate it. In “The Study of Administration” he wrote that “the study of administration … is the most obvious part of the study of political science,” and he lamented that America had been slow to develop this science because of its “preoccupation with constitutional questions.” The German example, by contrast, had “long ago passed beyond” such preoccupations.
Wilson thus proposed to transfer legitimacy from consent to competence—from the people’s elected representatives to trained administrative experts. In doing so, he imported the Hegelian premise of historic evolution: government must adapt organically, not remain confined to an 18th-century blueprint.
3. The Evolutionary Premise and the Eclipse of the Founders
This German influence explains Wilson’s recurrent contrast between the “old” constitutionalism and the “new” administrative state. In later writings he would say, “Government is not a machine, but a living thing. … It falls, not under the theory of the universe, but under the theory of organic life.” Such language reflects the Hegelian and Darwinian fusion characteristic of German progressivism: political institutions are organisms that evolve rather than obey fixed principles.
To a German administrative theorist, this meant that bureaucracy could be the highest expression of democratic reason, because trained officials were instruments of the State’s moral purpose. Wilson carried that conviction into American political science, recasting the American experiment as a stage in governmental evolution, not a permanent constitutional settlement.
4. The Result: A German Constitution without a Written Charter
In practical terms, Wilson’s “administration” replaced the American idea of a limited constitution with a German-style bureaucratic constitution—unwritten, flexible, and guided by experts.
Where the Founders designed a republic of laws and separated powers, Wilson envisioned an administrative commonwealth directed by an educated class of public servants. This was not the overthrow of government by violence, but by philosophical substitution: the organism of the State superseded the mechanism of the Constitution.
Would you like me to follow this with the next logical section, “From Separation to Specialization: How Administration Replaced Constitutional Checks”?
Search term: "very essence of tyranny" madison
The phrase, often attributed to or inspired by James Madison, refers to the concentration of governmental powers into a single entity, which is seen as the "very definition of tyranny". This concept is a core principle of the separation of powers in the U.S. Constitution, which divides governmental authority among the legislative, executive, and judicial branches to prevent any one from becoming too powerful. [1, 2, 3]
The source of the idea
- Federalist No. 51: In this influential essay, Madison argues that the "accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny".
- Influenced by Montesquieu: Madison's view was heavily influenced by the French philosopher Montesquieu, who also argued that the separation of powers was essential for liberty, as a union of powers would lead to arbitrary rule. [1, 2, 3]
The debate at the Constitutional Convention
- The idea of concentrating power was a major point of contention during the drafting of the Constitution.
- Roger Sherman famously stated that an executive "absolutely dependent on that body" (the legislature) was "the very essence of tyranny," in a debate about the method of electing the president.
- Madison, along with others, advocated for a separation of powers to ensure the independence of each branch and to prevent tyranny. [1, 3, 4, 5, 6]
AI responses may include mistakes.
Perplexity doesn't want to admit it
Fact check (or "opinion-check") this claim: In 1887, Woodrow Wilson wrote a...
Fact check (or "opinion-check") this claim:
In 1887, Woodrow Wilson wrote a paper advocating replacement of the Constitution of 1787 (which Wilson called "Newtonian") with a new system of government called "Administration" (which he called Darwinian).
The claim that in 1887, Woodrow Wilson wrote a paper advocating replacement of the Constitution of 1787 (which Wilson called "Newtonian") with a new system of government called "Administration" (which he called Darwinian) is only partially accurate and requires clarification and nuance.
Wilson's 1887 Paper: Focus and Key Language
In 1887, Wilson published “The Study of Administration,” a foundational essay in the field of public administration.ballotpedia+1
Wilson did make a distinction between a "Newtonian" view (mechanistic, rigid checks and balances) and a "Darwinian" view (organic, adaptable, evolutionary) of government, particularly in later writings such as “Constitutional Government in the United States” (1908), but also thematically in his administrative thought.teachingamericanhistory+3
The “Newtonian” characterization referred to how the U.S. Constitution was designed—as a system governed by fixed laws and balances, akin to Newton’s physics. Wilson believed that government instead should be viewed as a living organism, adapting and evolving with society—a "Darwinian" organism.wilsoncenter+1
Wilson did NOT explicitly call for the abolition or wholesale replacement of the Constitution in his 1887 paper. Rather, he argued for a new science of administration to be developed within the constitutional framework—one that would allow government functions to evolve and become more efficient through professional, non-political administration.aksujacog+2
He challenged the strict separation of powers in practice (not necessarily in constitutional text), arguing for greater cooperation and adaptation between branches, especially using administrative agencies.pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih+3
Misconceptions and Corrections
Wilson did not use the exact term “Administration” as a formal name for a new system of government nor did he demand outright replacement of the Constitution with it.ballotpedia+1
His advocacy was for reform and evolution in government practice—especially through an expanded, expert-led administration (the precursor to the "administrative state")—not the abandonment of the constitutional system itself.alec+1
Wilson’s Darwinian analogy was critical of treating government as a static machine but did not constitute a formal or legal proposal to discard the 1787 Constitution.constitutingamerica+2
Conclusion
Wilson’s 1887 essay advocated for a more adaptive, professional, and evolutionary approach to government administration (“Darwinian”) as opposed to a rigid, purely mechanical system (“Newtonian”). However, the claim overstates Wilson’s position: he did not explicitly call for replacement of the constitutional order, but rather for reform of government’s operational principles to reflect the organic, evolutionary needs of a modern society within the existing constitutional structure.teachingamericanhistory+3
- https://ballotpedia.org/%22The_Study_of_Administration%22_by_Woodrow_Wilson_(1887)
- https://aksujacog.org.ng/articles/22/04/woodrow-wilsons-1887-essay-on-administration-and-the-challenges-before-21st-century-scholars/aksujacog_02_01_04.pdf
- https://teachingamericanhistory.org/document/constitutional-government-chapter-iii-the-president-of-the-united-states/
- https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36877113/
- https://www.wilsoncenter.org/sites/default/files/media/documents/event/constitution%20broken%20essay.doc
- https://constitutingamerica.org/thursday-may-30-2013-essay-74-woodrow-wilsons-what-is-progress-guest-essayist-robert-clinton/
- https://alec.org/article/how-americas-administrative-state-undermines-the-constitution/
- https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/american-political-science-review/article/woodrow-wilson-and-the-study-of-administration-a-new-look-at-an-old-essay/57B96CA6CD39B5F6BEAA1A6B7E5814FC
- https://publics22.classes.ryansafner.com/readings/Wilson-1887.pdf
- http://ndl.ethernet.edu.et/bitstream/123456789/63997/1/33.pdf.pdf
>> did not explicitly call for replacement of the constitutional order,
Of course Wilson did not explicitly call for the formal replacement of the Constitution. Forces opposed to the limited government of 1787 have never done this, while advocating a vision of government that James Madison, "The Father of the Constitution," has called "the very essence of tyranny," which, according to the Declaration of Independence, every good American has a "duty" (not just a "right") to abolish. But since Wilson opposed the Constitution's "separation of powers," and the Administrative state accumulates "all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective," wouldn't Madison and (especially) the anti-Federalists say that Wilson did not just "reform" the Constitution, but effectively negated it, without formally repealing it?
Madison famously warned that the "accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny" (Federalist No. 47). He saw the separation of powers as a core safeguard against oppressive government.repository.uclawsf+3
The Anti-Federalists, meanwhile, argued that the original Constitution already mingled powers too much, endangering liberty and making accountability difficult. They contended that clear, exclusive separation of each governmental function was needed to preserve freedom and prevent concentration of power.chicagounbound.uchicago+1
Woodrow Wilson, by criticizing the constitutional checks and balances as inefficient and arguing for a more adaptive and professional "administrative state," placed himself in opposition to Madison’s concept of the separation of powers. The administrative model, blending executive, legislative, and even judicial capacities within policy-focused agencies, does align with the kind of power concentration Madison explicitly called tyranny.chicagounbound.uchicago+1
While Wilson did not formally repeal the Constitution, Anti-Federalists and strict constitutionalists could (and do) argue that developing an administrative state with such blended powers effectively undermines, or "negates," the protections intended by the 1787 constitutional structure—without ever stating so outright. Thus, from the Madisonian and Anti-Federalist perspective, reforms that erode or bypass separation of powers, even in the name of efficiency or progress, are seen as a fundamental departure from constitutionalism and a pathway to the very dangers Madison intended to guard against.globalpi+4
- https://repository.uclawsf.edu/hastings_constitutional_law_quaterly/vol29/iss3/4/
- https://globalpi.org/article/james-madison-concentration-of-powers-is-tyranny
- https://content.bellevue.edu/cas/la/kss-2022/federalist-paper-47-51-summary.pdf
- https://guides.loc.gov/federalist-papers/text-41-50
- https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2324&context=public_law_and_legal_theory
- https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/journal_articles/10404/
- https://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch10s15.html
- https://www.azquotes.com/author/9277-James_Madison/tag/separation-of-powers
- https://constitutionalcommentary.lib.umn.edu/article/madisons-denial/
- https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed47.asp
Google says Fed paper 51, Perplexity says 47
It is 47: The Avalon Project : Federalist No 47