Problem
The three authors whose works we have considered with respect to the drafting and ratification of the Constitution might be said to each have a different emphasis on why the Constitution came about and what it meant in terms of a continuous historical process. For her part, Carol Berkin seems to see the Constitution as a deviation from the revolutionary moment, a pragmatic response to changing conditions that required creative compromise. Francis Cogliano, on the other hand, seems to cast the Constitution as the culmination of the revolutionary process, the natural outcome of that process. Bailyn, however, calls the Constitution the "Fulfillment" of the ideology of revolution. Which of these characterizations-Deviation, Culmination, or Fulfillment-do you find to be the most persuasive way of understanding what the Constitution was and why it took the form it did?