Woody and TR still thought they had to override or change the Constitution, since they assumed it meant what it said.
Progressives hadn’t figured out yet that the Constitution was really a “living document” that meant whatever progressive judges said it meant.
Their open opposition was thus more respectful of constitutional principles than the modern ignoring of them.
Your #12 is an insightful and accurate comment.
But. perhaps Woody and TR who apparently felt constrained were only “respectful of constitutional principles” because they had not yet developed the models and the “work-arounds” that confront us today. (As you know, TR was <1917 and Wilson’s statement was in 1913)
There is room to argue, certainly in the case of Wilson, that their intent may have been only slightly less threatening than that of the current actors.
“Woody and TR still thought they had to override or change the Constitution, since they assumed it meant what it said.”
They found a way, however.
The 17th Amendment was the cornerstone to the Progressive agenda. With it, they took away the primary means of limiting the growth of the federal government, the individual states. Before the 17th Amendment senators were selected by state legislatures to represent the interests of the state — which included maintaining control of state powers.
Once “the people” elected Senators, they became nothing but additional House members representing the whims and fancies of the people — who could always be persuaded to concede to the federal government those powers that were formerly theirs (and the states’).
If you ever want to return to the constitutional principle of limited government then the 17th Amendment must be repealed.