Then why even discuss history? Who cares if the Civil War was fought over tax revenue?
Who cares if there was a PRO-SLAVERY amendment, passed by both houses and endorsed by lincoln, before the war even started?
Maybe, just maybe, democracy can and does work. The question before us -- which you ignore -- is whether it would better work without the 17th amendment than with it, and not whether or not the Republic died in 1861, or 1912 or 1913.
Not to be subtle or anything, but there's a bit more to the workings of federalism than the direct election of the Senate.
Democracy has not been served by the 17th amendment precisely for opposite reasons than DiLorenzo suggests. The 17th amendment has negated democracy in destroying the constituents' relationship to both the state legislature and the Senators, who are further removed from the voter by the severe dilution of the direct election over the State legislature's more direct relation to the constituent.
x, I know you feel that the 17th didn't change much. Indeed, in the makeup of the Senate post-17th, little changed. (Go Boies Penrose!). Still, it failed in its purposes. I see no gains in it other than a transfer of corruption. In the diluted role of the citzen in transfering the Senate selection from local/representative to state-wide referendum, I see far more lost than gained. I still hope to convince you of this. Thanks, btw, for your good post.