The Founders created the Constitution during the late 18th
century ö an era when European philosophers were strongly criticizing
governments dominated by imperialism and monarchy. The design of the Constitution reflected the influence of the
European Enlightenment and the newly emerging beliefs in democracy, liberty for
more individuals in society, and the importance of checking the self-interest
inherent in ordinary human interactions. At
the same time, the founders were far from unanimous in their admiration for
direct democracy, and the Constitution they created reflects restraints on
democracy. While they believed that
monarchies were repressive, they knew that complete freedom would lead to
disorder. Their main challenge was to fashion a government that struck a balance
between liberty and order.
The European Enlightenment grew out of the
Scientific Revolution of the 16th and 17th centuries, a time of amazing
discoveries that form the basis of modern science.
Scientific success created confidence in the power of reason, which
enlightenment thinkers believed could be applied to human nature in the form of
natural laws. Every social,
political, and economic problem could be solved through the use of reason.
A seventeenth century English thinker of the 1600s - John
Locke - believed that in the "state of natureä people are
naturally free and equal, but that freedom led inevitably to inequality, and
eventually to chaos. Locke agreed with other philosophers of the day (such as
Thomas Hobbes) that the state of nature changes because humans are basically
self-centered. However, he believed
that they could be rational and even moral.
Even though people serve self-interests first, they fear violence,
particularly violent death. He
argued that people have natural rights from the state of nature that
include the right to "life, liberty, and property." In his Second Treatise of Government, Locke stated
that people form governments to protect these natural rights, giving up their
freedom to govern themselves through a social contract between government and
the governed. The only valid
government is one based on the consent of the governed. This consent creates a social contract ö an
agreement between rulers and citizens ö that both sides are obligated to
honor. If for any reason the
government breaks the contract through neglect of natural rights, the people
have the right to dissolve the government.
The founders generally were educated men who had read Locke
and Hobbes, as well as French philosophers, such as Montesquieu, Voltaire, and
Rousseau, who were concerned with freedom, equality, and justice.
John Locke, in particular, directly influenced the thinking of the
founders, as reflected in the Declaration of Independence.
Compare the words of Jefferson with those of John Locke:
|
LOCKE IN SECOND TREATISE OF CIVIL GOVERNMENT |
JEFFERSON IN THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE |
|
"When any one, or more, shall take upon them to make laws whom the people have not appointed so to do, they make laws without authority, which the people are not therefore bound to obey; by which means they come again to be out of subjection, and may constitute to themselves a new legislature." |
"When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands that have connected them with another, and to assume, among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them..." |
|
ãWhosoever uses force without right...puts himself into a state of war with those against whom he so uses it, and in that state all former ties are canceled, all other rights cease, and every one has a right to defend himself, and to resist the aggressor..." |
ãBut when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government..." |
|
"A state also of equality, wherein all the power and jurisdiction is reciprocal, no one having more than another..." |
"We hold these truths to be self-evident: That all men are created equal;" |
|
"[men] have a mind to unite for the mutual preservation of their lives, liberties, and....property.ä |
" that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." |
|
" To great and chief end, therefore, of men uniting into commonwealths, and putting themselves under government, is the preservation of their property...." |
" that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed." |
THEORETICAL
PERSPECTIVES
John Locke and other Enlightenment thinkers, such as
Voltaire, Montesquieu, and Jean Jacques Rousseau, created theories of democracy,
republican government, pluralism, and elitism that guided the Founders as they
shaped the new government of the United States in the late 18th
century.
DEMOCRATIC THEORY
At the time of the founding of the United States almost all
other political systems in the world were authoritarian regimes in which
rulers fully controlled the government, and often held sway over economic and
social institutions as well. Ironically,
the European country with the most controls on the power of its monarchs was
England, the very political system that the Americans so protested for its
oppressiveness. In fact, democratic
theory has very strong roots in British history, although it may be traced back
to much earlier civilizations, such as Ancient Greece.
Democracy is a form of government that places ultimate political
authority in the hands of the people. Democratic
theory has two basic models:
ELITE THEORY
How can a republic claim to be a democracy if only a few
people actually make political decisions, even if they are elected by the
people? Elite theory holds
that a ãrepresentative democracyä is not really based on the will of the
people, but that there is a relatively small, cohesive elite class that makes
almost all the important decisions for the nation. Another version of elite
theory argues that voters choose from among competing elites. New members of the elite are recruited through a merit-based
education system, so that the best and brightest young people join the ranks of
the elite. Elite theorists argue
that the founders believed that a privileged majority should rule in the name of
the people with a controlled amount of input from citizens.
PLURALIST THEORY
Another theoretical perspective is pluralism, the
argument that representative democracies are based on group interests that
protect the individualâs interests by representing him or her to the
government. The theory is grounded
in the notion that in a diverse society such as the United States, too many
interests exist to allow any one coherent group of elites to rule.
Government decisions are made in an arena of competing interests, all
vying for influence and struggling to speak for the people that they represent.
Some pluralists have argued that the founding fathers represented
different interests (such as rural vs. urban, or north vs. south), and that many
points of view were actually represented. The
model still works today, as pluralists argue, creating strong links between
government officials and their popular base.
The Constitution reflects the founders' attempt to balance
order with freedom. They generally
did not believe that people were fully capable of ruling themselves, but they
also wanted to check any tendency toward monarchy.
The Constitution is based on five great principles designed to achieve
this balance:
These principles resulted from the agreements and
compromises made at the Constitutional Convention in 1787.
BACKGROUND TO THE CONVENTION
During the Revolutionary War, the Continental Congress
wrote the Articles of Confederation to provide unity for the separate
states that loosely formed the new country.
The Articles allowed state governments to retain their powers, and the
newly formed central government had severe limitations:
When the war was over, the immediate need for unity was past, and chaos threatened to undo the new nation. States quarreled over borders and tariffs, the country was badly in debt, and foreign countries saw the lack of a strong central government as weakness that could easily be exploited. Many leaders began to push for a government strong enough to settle disputes, to regulate commerce, and levy limited taxes. An important turning point occurred when farmers in western Massachusetts, in debt and unable to pay their taxes, rebelled against foreclosures, forcing judges out of court and freeing debtors from jails. Shay's Rebellion was eventually controlled, but it encouraged leaders to seek a stronger central government.
Fifty-five delegates arrived from the thirteen states in May 1787. Most were important men in their states: planters, bankers, businessmen, and lawyers. Many were governors and/or Congressional representatives, and most had read works by Hobbes, Locke, and
French philosophers, such as Voltaire and Montesquieu.
Several famous delegates were:
Absent were Thomas Jefferson, serving as ambassador to France, and John Adams, ambassador to England. Other absent leaders were Patrick Henry, who refused to come because he ãsmelt a rat,ä and Samuel Adams, who was not selected by Massachusetts to attend. The absence of Patrick Henry and Samuel Adams almost certainly tilted the balance of the convention toward order and freed the delegates from criticism as they created a stronger central government.
The founders' common belief in a balanced government led
them to construct a government in which no single interest dominated.
They were concerned with the "excesses of democracy" (Elbridge
Gerry, delegate from Massachusetts), demonstrated by Shay's Rebellion, and they
agreed with Locke that government should protect property.
Benjamin Franklin - a strong proponent of liberty and
equality - proposed that all white males have the right to vote, but most
delegates believed that only property owners should have the franchise. In their
view, ordinary people would either scheme to deprive property owners of their
rights or become the "tools of demagogues."
In the end the founders did not include specific voting requirements in
the Constitution, leaving each state to decide voter qualifications for its
citizens.
A major issue at the convention was the balance of power
between the large states and the small. The
large states favored a strong national government that they believed they could
dominate, and the small states wanted stronger state governments that could
avert domination by the central government.
These different interests are apparent in the first discussions of
representation in Congress. Most favored a bicameral, or two-house, legislature, similar
to the organization of most state legislatures since colonial times.
The Great Compromise (The Connecticut Compromise)
The delegates from Virginia opened the Convention with their Virginia Plan that called for a strong central government. Although proposed by James Randolph, the plan was almost certainly the work of James Madison, who, along with Alexander Hamilton, reasoned that a suggestion as boldly different from the current government would not be accepted, but might at least inspire major revisions. Their plan succeeded beyond their hopes. The delegates took the plan seriously, and began the debate with the assumption that the central government would be strengthened greatly. The plan called for
a bicameral legislature: the larger house with members
elected by popular vote and the smaller, more aristocratic house selected by the
larger house from nominees from state legislatures.
Representation in both houses was to be based on wealth or numbers,
giving the large states a majority in the legislature. The Virginia Plan also
called for a national executive and a national judiciary.
Delegates from the small states countered with the New
Jersey Plan, presented by William Paterson. Just as Madison and Hamilton had hoped, the counter plan did
not argue with the need for a stronger central government, giving Congress the
right to tax, regulate, and coerce states.
The legislature would be unicameral, and each state would have the same
vote. The delegates from small
states were determined that the new legislature would not be dominated by the
large states, and the debate between large and small states deadlocked the
Convention. Finally, a committee was elected to devise a compromise, which they
presented on July 5.
The Great Compromise (also called the Connecticut Compromise) called for one house in which each state would have an equal vote (The Senate) and a second house (The House of Representatives) in which representation would be based on population. Unlike the Virginia Plan, the Senate would not be chosen by the House of Representatives, but would be chosen by the state legislatures. The House of Representatives would be directly elected by all voters, whose eligibility to vote would be determined by the states. The Compromise was accepted by a very slim margin, and the Convention was able to successfully agree on other controversial issues.
Other Compromises
Another disagreement at the Convention was based on
North/South differences, particularly regarding the counting of slaves for
purposes of apportioning seats in the House.
The South wanted to count slaves in order to increase its number of
representatives, and the North resisted. The
delegates finally agreed on the Three-fifths Compromise, which allowed
southern states to count a slave as three-fifths of a person, allowing a balance
of power between North and South.
Another debate concerned the selection of the president. The initial decision was for the president to be selected by Congress, but the delegates were concerned about too much concentration of power in the legislature. On the other hand, they feared direct election by the people, especially since the House of Representatives were to be popularly elected.
The Compromise was to leave the selection of the president
to an electoral college ö people selected by each state legislature to
formally cast their ballots for the presidency.
All but three of the delegates signed the document on
September 17, 1787, with others who opposed it leaving before that.
The drafting of the Constitution took about three months, but the
document has lasted for more than two hundred years, making it the longest
lasting Constitution in world history.
AMENDING THE CONSTITUTION
The Founders designed the amendment process to be difficult
enough that Congress could not add so many amendments that the original document
would end up with little meaning. The
process requires action by BOTH the national government and the states before an
amendment may be passed.
Formal Amendments
The Constitution may be formally amended in four ways:
The last two methods have never been used to amend the Constitution.
The Constitution is written broadly enough that change can
occur within our political system through interpreting the words to fit changing
needs and events. All three
branches have contributed to informal amendment of the Constitution.
BEARDâS CRITICISM OF THE FOUNDERS
The founders' interest in protection of property has led
some scholars to question their personal interests as motives in writing the
Constitution. Charles Beard argued
in An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution, written in 1913, that
the founders created a constitution that benefited their economic interests.
According to Beard, the major conflicts and compromises resulted from the
clash of owners of land as property, and owners of business or commercial
interests. Many scholars today disagree with Beard because voting at the
Convention did not follow these divisions closely.
For example, Elbridge Gerry, a wealthy Massachusetts merchant and
politician, refused to sign the Constitution.
James Madison and James Wilson, men of modest means, were two of its
biggest proponents. However, the
founders did tend to base their votes on the economic interests of their states,
as reflected in the famous compromises at the convention.
The delegates agreed that the Constitution would go into
effect as soon as popularly elected conventions in nine states approved it.
The debate over ratification ö the formal approval of the
Constitution by the states ö raged throughout the country, with supporters of
the new government calling themselves Federalists, and their opponents,
the Anti-Federalists. Federalists supported the greatly increased powers of the
central government and believed that the Constitution adequately protected
individual liberties. The
Anti-Federalists believed that the proposed government would be oppressive and
that more individual freedoms and rights should be explicitly guaranteed. Pamphlets, newspapers, and speeches supported one view or the
other.
Ratification of the Constitution was defended by the
Federalist Papers, written by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and
John Jay. These documents contain
some of the most basic and brilliantly argued philosophical underpinnings of
American government. Two famous
papers are Federalist #10 and Federalist #51.
The Federalist #10 argued that separation of powers and federalism check the growth of tyranny: If "factious leaders...kindle a flame within their particular states..." leaders can check the spread of the "conflagration through the other states." Likewise, each branch of the government keeps the other two from gaining a concentration of power. Federalist #10 also argues that Constitutional principles guard against the dangers of a direct democracy, or the ãcommon passion or interest·felt by a majority of the whole·such [direct] democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention.ä Madison argues that a long-lived democracy must manage its interest groups, even though these ãfactionsä can never be eliminated.
The Federalist #51 explained why strong government
is necessary: ãIf men were angels, no government would be necessary.
If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on
government would be necessary.ä
THE BILL OF RIGHTS
A compromise between Federalists and Anti-Federalists was reached with the agreement to add ten amendments that guaranteed individual freedoms and rights. With this agreement, the Constitution was finally ratified by all the states in 1789, and the Bill of Rights was added in 1791. Without these crucial additions, the Constitution would not have been ratified in several key states. Many of the recommendations from state ratifying conventions were considered by James Madison as he wrote the Bill, and he and a specially appointed committee submitted seventeen amendments to Congress. Congress eliminated five of them, and two were not immediately ratified by the states. These two did not become part of the original Bill of Rights, with one (dealing with apportionment of representatives) later clarified by Supreme Court decisions, and one (addressing salaries of members of Congress), added as an amendment 203 years later in 1992.
IMPORTANT
DEFINITIONS AND IDENTIFICATIONS:
Anti-Federalists
Articles of Confederation
authoritarian regimes
Bill of Rights
consent of the governed
direct democracy
An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution
elite theory
electoral college
European Enlightenment
Federalist Papers
Federalist #10
Federalists
formal amendment process
The Great Compromise
informal amendment process
judicial review
John Locke
majoritarianism
natural rights
New Jersey Plan
pluralism
ratification
representative democracy
Second Treatise on Government
Shayâs Rebellion
social contract
ãstate of natureä
Three-fifths Compromise
Virginia Plan
Go back to the Table of Contents