The Framers of the Constitution of the United States met in Philadelphia during the summer of 1787 to devise a new form of government to replace the Articles of Confederation which had, in their opinion, been adequate for governing the country through the American Revolution but was no longer sufficient if the United States were to survive in the emerging world. In discussing the calling of the Constitutional Convention, we must look at three questions: What domestic and foreign problems caused the calling? What were the Antifederalist arguments against the Constitution? And did the Constitution preserve the ideas of the Revolution or did it contain and limit the “fruits of the Revolution?”
Almost from the beginning, the Articles of Confederation showed signs of an inability to govern the new nation. As Rakove noted, the “gap between the broad responsibilities that had been delegated to congress and the circumscribed powers with which it had to exercise its duties” made the articles ineffective. On the domestic front, the need for an unanimous vote by all states allowed the states to thumb their noses at the Federal government. Morgan and Madison in his Vices of the Political System of the United States, 1787, made clear that the states were not holding up their end of the bargain by refusing constitutional requisitions, making treaties, maintaining armies and navies, and warring with Native Americans.
With no method of taxation, the Revolutionary war debt remained largely unpaid. Although western expansion was dealt with through the Northwest Ordinances, it only addressed the northern half. With no national coinage, each state managed their own monetary system and pitted state versus state on questions of debt and credit. Within states, there were conflicts between debtors and creditors as well as farmers and merchants which ultimately led to conflicts such as Shays’s Rebellion and there was no means for the Federal government to address these conflicts.
Beyond the borders the Articles proved just as inept. With an economy dependent on foreign trade, the new nation could not protect its interests. The British closed their West Indies ports to American traders, knowing full well that there was nothing the fledgling nation could do about it. The Spanish controlled the lower Mississippi River and New Orleans thus hampering the ability of farmers in the Ohio Valley to ship their goods. In the Northwest, the British still held on to their forts in violation of the Treaty of Paris knowing that there would be no concerted effort by the weak Federal government of the United States to force them out. Morgan relates this sense of weakness in foreign affairs in recounting the experiences of John Adams in Britain, Thomas Jefferson in France, and John Jay in Spain. All faced Old World nations waiting for the new nation to split apart. To the those who had just fought for their freedom and liberty less than a decade ago, something needed to be done and that was to call the Constitutional Convention.
Once the Framers had devised a workable plan for a new form of government that provided for a stronger national influence, the Antifederalists expressed concern. Kramnick pointed out that the Antifederalists felt that the new nation was too large for a republican form of government; all in the past have failed. The small ratio of representation would remove the representatives from the interests of those they represented. Many Antifederalists were appalled at the secular tone of the new Constitution; for them religion and morality were key ingredients for virtuous governance.
Mercy Otis Warren gave eighteen reasons for people to dismiss the Constitution and high on the list was the vagueness of the powers defined and the lack of security for liberties. The lack of a Bill of Rights to protect individual freedoms, a point debated by the Framers for inclusion, gave Antifederalists a solid base to claim that the Constitution gave too much power to the Federal government. Another point, expressed by a Massachusetts farmer named Amos Singletary, was that the Constitution would create a monopoly in government by the wealthy and well born. They “will swallow up all us little folk” was how he stated it. In the end, the debate between the Antifederalists and Federalists produced the first ten amendments to the United States Constitution, the Bill of Rights, which were needed to pass the Constitution in all thirteen states.
The last question, did the Constitution preserve the ideas of the Revolution or did it contain and limit the “fruits of the Revolution,” appears to be that the Constitution limited and contained what was gained during the Revolution. If the Articles of the Confederation equals the ideas of the Revolution, then the Constitution, developed from the weaknesses of the Articles, would equal limiting those ideas. As Banning pointed out, the “will of unrestrained majorities was often inconsistent with the rights of minorities.” This was evident with the conflicts between debtors and creditors, leading Elbridge Gerry to state that we have experienced “an excess of democracy.” Though the ideas of the Revolution were noble and lofty, practicality was needed and, to use Slaughter’s terminology, a return to a more “ordered” government was in line in order for the new nation to survive. The experience of the Whiskey Rebellion so soon into the new Constitutional experiment seems to confirm this.
On the other hand, it can be said that the Constitution provided the means for more people to taste the “fruits of the Revolution” though not immediately. Madison’s plan to expand the sphere of government to include a broader base of the American population, although slightly modified during the Constitutional Convention, did expand the number of white males who could vote.
Although the Constitution protected slavery it did allow room for anti-slavery legislation. It gave power to and did abolish the slave trade in 1808. As Nieman noted, slavery was on the way out and abolition laws had been passed by five states before the constitution was written and two more shortly after, thus making slavery a regional and not national institution. The Framers were sensitive to the issue of slavery and Madison felt it would be wrong for there to be “property in men.” It was not by accident that the words slave or slavery are not in the Constitution.
The inclusion of the Bill of Rights, which reemphasized the fundamental liberties expressed in the Declaration of Independence, reinforced the notion of natural rights of all persons. Lewis extended this idea to women and asserts that the language of the Constitution, such as persons and citizens, was a shift from the Declaration of Independence, which used the word “men” only. Zagarri noted that increased talk about rights from the Revolution through the 1790s expanded the “range of privileges known as rights.” More and more segments of American society began to feel they had rights.
History is broad in scope and while it is easy to point out that
some populations did not at first experience the ideas of the Revolution,
there were many who did for the first time in history experience the liberties
and freedoms of the American Revolution which paved the way for the rest.
Were the Framers wrong to compromise on slavery and thus continue the
institution in the South? In hindsight perhaps so but a vast, sweeping
revolution such as the one experienced by the French and by extension much
of Europe also set in motion events that created hardships and atrocities
also down to the present. By not grasping for all the marbles, the
Constitution was accepted and allowed the new nation to survive.
The flexibility of the Constitution provided the means for all Americans,
in time, to experience the “fruits of the Revolution.”
Sources:
Morton Borden, Parties and Politics in the early Republic, 1789-1815 (Wheeling, IL, Harlan Davidson, Inc., 1967).
Richard D. Brown, Major Problems in the Era of the American Revolution, 1760-1791, second edition (Boston, Houghton Mifflin Company, 2000).
Edmund S. Morgan, The Birth of the Republic, 1763-89, third edition (Chicago, The University of Chicago Press, 1992).
Thomas P. Slaughter, The Whiskey Rebellion (New York, Oxford University Press, 1986).
Marshall Smelser, The Democratic Republic, 1801-1815 (Prospect Heights, IL, Waveland Press, Inc., 1992).
Roy Strong, The Story of Britain, A People’s History (London, Pimlico, 1998)
Sean Wilentz, Major Problems in the Early Republic, 1787-1848 (Lexington,
MA, D.C. Heath and Company, 1992).