In May, 1787, the doors of a small state house in Philadelphia closed and work toward creating a new government began. It would take about four months of arguing and debating before the Constitution was something the delegates hoped would soon ratified and enacted. These delegated had been sent by their respective states with the intent of amending the current Articles of Confederation. Instead, in September of that same year, what emerged from that small statehouse was probably one of the most famous documents in American history, the Constitution of the United States. The goal of this historical analysis is to understand the stipulations that could cause such a dire need for change in the American government, the processes involved in forging this new government, and the impact that this change would have on future generations.
To better understand why the Confederacy of colonies needed a new unified political establishment, aspects such as the current political structure, economic instability, and internal unrest are all factors that must be considered. After the colonies had won their freedom, individual states constructed their own independent constitutions. Because the people were so afraid of tyrannical leadership, most of the states constitutions were weak and offered little to no real power and authority to the state governments. To counter this blatant and obvious error, governmental administrators devised a system of checks and balances. This would consist of three branches – executive, judicial, and legislative – that would regulate each other and prohibit any one branch form gaining total political control. This system would not, however, provide adequate authority. The country still needed a unified national arrangement and that would first come in the form of the Articles of Confederation. Considered to be more a league of friendship, this document dealt with international trade, interstate conflict, and regulating currency values (The Articles of Confederation). The intention of the Articles of Confederation were to give all states fair say in national politics but required unanimous agreement among the states to pass a bill; this made the enacting of laws nearly impossible. Without the ability to take decisive action, most major problems remained unsolved by the federal administration.
One of the greatest challenges that the country endured under the Articles of confederation was economic crisis. The country still maintained a steep debt due to the Revolutionary War, and some soldiers had to be paid with land vouchers because the government had no money to pay them. The Articles of Confederation did not grant to Congress the ability to tax the states, money could only be requested (Belkin 22). Because most states still had debts of their own to pay after the war, theses requests were typically unanswered (Robertson 55). To make matters worse, trade stability was quickly declining. The inability for the federal government to pass laws and regulate trade deterred other countries from making any trade agreements with America because there was no way for these covenants to be enforced. States also set up independent trade taxes and tariffs that made interstate trade hostile and unprofitable (Belkin 6). In an attempt to cover the financial obligations of maintaining governmental duties, both Congress and state officials issued more and more money; this costly mistake diminished the value of Continental currency and caused a surge of inflation throughout the country (Robertson 53).
Like all states, Massachusetts had amassed a financial deficit after the Revolutionary War. To help pay for this debt, the state turned to taxation which infuriated many colonists. These citizens had just fought a war over what they considered to be tyrannical taxation and now the newly established state government was trying to tax them as well. People who could not pay their taxes were sent to debtor’s prison until the debt was paid. Daniel Shays was among the indebted even though he had been employed as an officer in the Continental Army. In an attempt to overthrow and dispose the state government, he amassed fifteen hundred soldiers and marched them to Springfield in January, 1787 (Robertson 54). After an unsuccessful attack on the local federal armory, the majority of Shay’s combatants fled the state. This attempted rebellion sent a shockwave of insecurity and fear throughout the other states and political leaders feared they would be overturned by a mob rule. This unrest and the weakened economy served as a clear indication to state leaders that the current federal government was entirely too inefficient, and that a more powerful national arrangement must be devised. Twelve of the thirteen states made certain that they would have delegates sent to attend the next Constitutional Convention.
The processes that produced the Constitution of the United States are defined by the people that took part in writing it; these people are credited for changing the course of and setting the standard for American politics. Among the delegates sent to amend the Articles of Confederation are some of the most famous men in American history. Benjamin Franklin had made a name for him-self worldwide in European affairs and General George Washington served his country yet again as the presiding officer. James Madison is often credited for being the Father of the Constitution as he was one of the most influential designers (Robertson 245). In preparation for the convention, Madison studied government extensively and even wrote a research paper titled “Vices of the Political System of the United States” (Robertson 80). Having become fed up with the states unwillingness to cooperate with the federal government – as is indicated by the very first topic – and failure to acknowledge the rights of other states – as indicated by the fourth topic – much of this document is dedicated to pointing out the inadequacies of state constitutions and practices (Madison 35-36).
After a few weeks of deliberation, the delegates realized the Articles of Confederation could not be amended and that they would need to draft an entirely new document. Secrecy was believed to be paramount in this endeavor, so the delegates agreed to not discuss or divulge any information concerning their intent until the process was complete. Through a hot and sultry summer in a cramped and poorly circulated room, these men toiled relentlessly to ensure the interests of all the states were met as adequately as possible. Because the delegates knew that a stronger central government was necessary, a federalist approach was taken by many when selecting how the new constitution should be built. The Virginia Plan was the product of many Virginians but was reorganized and proposed by James Madison (Belkin 31). This plan was centered upon a two house legislature. There would be more National authority over state and larger states granted more representatives. The Virginia plan was supported by larger states but opposed by smaller states for obvious reasons. To countermand the idea of too much federal authority placed in the hands of the larger states, William Patterson advocated the New Jersey Plan. Patterson’s goal was to grant equal representation to all states, and in the hopes of fixing the financial dilemma, was intent upon a Unicameral Congress with powers of taxation and trade regulation (Fiske 245). The delegates were deadlocked in a stalemate and neither side wanted to cede their goals.
Not only was it vital that all the delegates could agree on the items to be included in the United States Constitution, but certain steps had to be taken to ensure that each state would agree to ratify the new constitution as well. To break the tension between the New Jersey Plan and the Virginia Plan and also encourage ratification, Roger Sherman proposed the Great Compromise. Under this structure, the election of senators was granted to state legislatures and senate representation was equalized for all states. It was decided that all new bills must be suggested by the lower house and house representation was to be determined by population; the compromise broke the stalemate but also led to the next great controversy. This challenge would focus on slaves and whether their populous should be counted when determining the number of house representatives that a state would be granted. The three-fifths formula – that had been instituted in the Confederation Congress – was employed to solve this dilemma (Robertson 56). There was also a need for a third branch of government to meet the requirements of checks and balances. This would become the presidential office, in charge of foreign affairs and appointed commander-in-chief (Berkin 10). With these crucial elements in place and the majority of delegates satisfied with the outcome, the delegates of the Constitutional Convention hoped this bill would soon be ratified and upheld by at least nine of the states.
Although Madison is coined as the father of the Constitution and many other men toiled tirelessly to see it completed, the actual document was penned by Gouverneur Morris; he also made vital contributions as the skillful language and legal precision he employed made the United States Constitution both eloquent and concise (Berkin 149-150). With the document written and signed by many of the key delegates the quest for ratification had begun. Not all Americans were satisfied with the Constitution and some of the delegates that toiled and the Continental Congress were vehemently against it. To the advantage of the federalist in support of the bill, according to Belkin, most opposition “had no collective critique, no agreed-upon set of objectives” (176). This would weaken their arguments and fragment anti-federalists, opposed to the ratification of the Constitution, into smaller groups with separate agendas. Also, many supporters of the Constitution were prepared for strong opposition and countered with the Federalist Papers. This series of letters and news paper posts written by John Jay, James Madison and Alexander Hamilton argued for acceptance of the Constitution and explained any elements that critics found unclear (Berkin 175). Anti-federalist claimed that the federal government would grow too powerful without a bill of rights to protect the rights of the states and citizens. The delegates that drafted the Constitution had deemed it unnecessary as every state already had its own standing bill of rights; Madison had even suggested before the end of the Constitutional Convention that a bill of rights was essential for ratification but the notion was shot down by all states (Berkin 159).
Some states needed little convincing and were immediately ready to ratify the Constitution. Delaware took little time coming to an agreement, according to Conley, “After only three hours of debate, the Delaware convention unanimously ratified the Constitution” (30). Not all states, however, were ready to accept the new system. Massachusetts was among the more skeptic states and showed evidence of an overwhelming anti-federalist majority; if Massachusetts rejected the proposal it would spell disaster for the Constitution and may have single handedly ruined any chance for nationwide ratification (Conley 30-31). If the state committee was to be won over, the federalists would need the support of a powerful ally. The federalist enlisted the aid of anti-federalist John Hancock – the president of the Massachusetts ratification committee – to propose that the Constitution be ratified unconditionally with the intent of passing amendments to it at a later time; as incentive, the federalists pledged to support Hancock in his campaign for Vice Presidency (Conley 31). The plan worked and Massachusetts ratified bringing the constitution one state closer to national acceptance.
Nine states had already accepted the Constitution when the Virginia deliberation committee was assembled, but the battle for ratification was not yet over. Although, the minimum requirements had been met, Virginia was one of the most influential states due to its large population and the political sway of many Virginian residents (Fiske 339). Yet again the need for a bill of rights seemed to be the top debate. Anti-federalists, like Patrick Henry, were reluctant to agree to anything without first adding amendments, but federalists adamantly felt that if this Constitution was not passed the Union would collapse beyond repair (Conley 35-36). The Virginia committee was a major lynch pin for the bill of rights movement and also crucial for the successful ratification of the Constitution in all states. After drafting “recommendatory amendments,” the committee finally reached a vote for the Constitution to be ratified in Virginia (Conley 36).
New York was the last major state to ratify, but preparations for establishing the new government were already well underway when North Carolina and Rhode Island agreed to the Constitution (Fiske 345). With the administration in place, discussions for amendments to the U.S. Constitution could take place, as it was a topic of much controversy during the ratification process. Once the amendments were passed and accepted as the U.S. Bill of Rights, tensions over the Constitution had died down almost completely. The plan had been set in motion and the participants in its construction were very busy taking part in it. Many of the men that debated so heatedly about the constitution were now working together again, not to make a new government, but to maintain one.
The direct and immediate implications of the Constitution were to limit certain jurisdictions of the states and grant power to congress enabling them to normalize trade both internationally and between the states (Hodder-Williams 25). One of the most important byproducts of the Constitution was that federal regulations were enacted to make currency more consistent between the states. With a more stable economy, the country could focus on increasing national productivity and expansion westward. It also made it possible for the President to quickly muster troops when required for defense against a foreign power or an internal uprising (Hodder-Williams 25). George Washington was unanimously elected as the first United States President and would serve many four year terms.
The time and care that when into the construction of the Constitution has enabled this document to remain the standard by which America governs to this day. The monumental impact that the Constitution has had on America is evidenced by the fact that it has been in place for over two hundred years. By implementing brilliant ideas such as the systems of checks and balances, the tree-fifths agreement, and the great compromise, the founding fathers of America have provided a unique, fair, and democratic system of government. By understanding the stipulations that brought about the need for change in the American government, the processes involved in forming this new government, and the impact that this change would have on future generations, this analysis has proven that America is the home of a government worth upholding.
Works Cited
Berkin, Carol. A Brilliant Solution: Inventing the American Constitution. Orlando, FL: Harcourt,
2002. Print.
Conley, Patrick T. The Bill of Rights and the States: The Colonial and Revolutionary Origins of
American Liberties. Madison, WI: Madison House Publishers, Inc., 1992. Print.
Fiske, John. The Critical Period of American History, 1783-1789. Cambridge, MA: The
Riverside Press, 1888. Print.
Hodder-Williams, Richard. “University of Bristol” Reflections of the Constitution: the American
Constitution after Two Hundred Years. Eds. Richard Maidment, and John Zvesper. New
York, NY: Manchester University Press, 1989. 25-50. Print.
Madison, James. Selected Writings of James Madison. Ed. Ralph Ketcham. Cambridge, MA:
Hackett Publishing Company, Inc., 2006. Print.
Robertson, David Brian. The Construction and America’s Destiny. New York, NY: Cambridge
University Press, 2005. Print.
“The Articles of Confederation” U.S. Constitutions Online. N.p. 18 Oct. 2010. Web. 31 Oct.
2010.
No comments:
Post a Comment