A History Lesson
To the Editor:
As I listened to news reports on cases the current administration brought to the Supreme Court, and other courts, I was reading H. W. Brandes’ Founding Partisans on the drafting and ratification of the US Constitution. The Articles of Confederation had barely sustained the colonies’ war of independence from British monarchy. Would they guide the new nation’s quest for democracy?
Fearing they would not, conferences to amend and reform the Articles matured into the Constitutional Convention which met in Philadelphia in the sweltering summer of 1787, more than a decade after the Declaration of Independence. Newly formed states were called on to send delegates. George Washington agreed to preside, postponing his retirement to Mount Vernon.
All parties agreed that the Revolution was fought to reject monarchy. Delegates such asAlexander Hamilton wanted a strong federal government, even a powerful executive. Also concerned the Articles were weak, James Madison wanted a strong national government, but one not so strong that courts and congress could not keep it from becoming despotic. Proposals were set forth. Battles were waged. Feelings were hurt. Aspirations for change were rewarded— and dashed. Compromise was achieved. Republican democracy was being born in America.
Finally, a document was agreed upon and prepared to submit to the states for ratification. It affirmed the rule of law and sought to balance the powers of the executive, judiciary, and legislative branches. To protect citizens, the Bill of Rights would be created to restrain the legislative and administrative branches from overreach. That Bill would be needed to melt away final resistance to the Constitution. Big states, small states, northern states, and southern states, all were becoming factions. Madison feared that factions’ conflicting interests would prevent a national government from bridging gaps that could grow from cracks to chasms. Time would test whether states’ interests would wound and even kill the newly formed union. One seam was the fairness of big state versus small state representation. Another seam was slavery, a problem made apparent when it came to counting them for proportional representation and for forcing the return of those who escaped. A third, tariffs, gave some states economic advantage.
During the arguments, the guiding patience of George Washington prevailed. The time arrived to submit it to the people and seek their support. On Sept. 17, Benjamin Franklin said, “Mr. President, I agree to this constitution with all of its faults, if they are such, because I think a general government necessary for us, and there is no form of government but what may be a blessing to the people if well administrated, and believe farther that this is likely to be well administered for a course of years, and can only end in despotism, as other forms have done before it, when people shall become so corrupted as to need despotic government, being incapable of any other.”
Franklin realized that some people would denigrate the proposed government rather than wish it well with encouragement and modesty. He thought about the coming challenges: “Much of the strength and efficiency of any government in procuring and securing happiness to the people depends on opinion, on the general opinion of the goodness of the government, as well as of the wisdom and integrity of its governors.”
Bob Heath Carmine