Since, in
discussing Washington’s Address, I've been able to cover most of the major
themes and events of the early years of the American republic, I’d like to now
take the opportunity to segue into something a bit more obscure and a bit more
challenging. And at the same time I’d also like to backtrack a little, shifting
from the 1790s, when the American Constitution was first put through its paces,
to the late 1780s, when that same document was initially proposed and ratified.
This will involve some amount of background (as ever) and the introduction of a
new personality into the discussion: James Madison, Virginian, central
architect of the American Constitution, father of the Bill of Rights,
Congressman, and President. Madison wrote Federalist No. 10, one of 85 essays
written to promote the ratification of the Constitution, and widely regarded as
one of the most significant documents in American political history. I’ll get
to the why and wherefore a little later; for now, I’d like to talk about what
was going on in the United States in the 1780s and why some people thought that
a Constitution was suddenly necessary.
In addition to
voting in favour of independence in 1776 and publishing a declaration to that
effect, the Continental Congress also set about creating, in 1777, a framework
for governing the newly-independent states. The charter that the assembled
delegates came up with, which was ultimately ratified by all 13 states in 1781,
was known as the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union. Unlike the
later Constitution, which created a strong federal government complete with
taxing power, a Supreme Court and a single executive (in this case a
president), the Articles functioned more like a treaty of military and economic
cooperation between 13 distinct political bodies. Under the Articles the United
States had no president or federal court system and vested executive power
almost entirely in Congress. The states retained authority over most of their
own affairs, leaving Congress to conduct the war effort, organize loans and
engage in international diplomacy. This arrangement was preferred at the time because
it avoided the kind of centralization of power that characterized the British
system of government, which many of the Revolutionaries had come to see as
increasingly tyrannical. For the duration of the war the government under the
Articles functioned reasonably well (or well enough), but it was after the end
of hostilities in 1783 that its inherent weaknesses became apparent.
In the absence of a
war effort to administer, the Congress of the Confederation (as it’s often
referred to now) had very few powers or responsibilities. Unable to tax the
states, it could only make requests for funds which the states usually ignored.
During the war this left the federal government perpetually cash-strapped,
requiring it to print an excess of paper money (which quickly lost its value)
in order to pay soldiers their salaries, and purchase supplies and ammunition.
Without a war to incentivize lending the states became even less inclined to
fund the initiatives of Congress, leaving it essentially powerless to repay the
debts it had incurred, pursue any kind of internal improvements or organize a
national defence. This economic infirmity, combined with the inability of
Congress to regulate commerce between states, prevent the adoption of preferential
trade practices or encourage manufacturing, created an increasingly anxious
political climate. Popular discontent with debts that had accumulated during
the Revolution also led to protests and attempts by state governments to
nullify certain financial obligations, to the displeasure of the creditors that
were owed. By 1786, with disaffected former soldiers holding valueless
government bonds, land prices at a low ebb, and many states showing a manifest
incapability of coordinating their trade practices (and in fact often competing
with each other), it had become apparent to many of the Revolutionary elite
that some kind of change was necessary.
The result was the calling of the
Philadelphia Convention of 1787, an assembly of notables, statesmen, and
lawmakers from 12 of the 13 states (Rhode Island being the exception). Initially
convened with the stated aim of revising the Articles of Confederation in order
to create a more effective government, the assembled delegates very quickly
abandoned that objective in favor of drafting an entirely new governing charter
for the United States. Since this post is not intended to provide a complete
history of the Constitution I won’t dwell on who said what during the
convention, whose plans were adopted and what kinds of things were debated.
Suffice to say, the final draft of the Constitution was arrived at after months
of work and much heated discussion, and was submitted to the states for
ratification by specially appointed conventions in September, 1787. In order to
become law the Constitution required 9 of 13 states to vote for ratification,
and in some cases this was easily accomplished (as in Connecticut, Georgia,
North Carolina and New Jersey). However, states like Virginia, Pennsylvania,
Massachusetts and New York (among the largest and most influential states) saw
far more significant opposition to the Constitution. In order to promote
ratification in these key states, and counter some of the articles that were
being printed in opposition to the new charter, Alexander Hamilton (veteran of
the Revolution, New York lawyer and first Secretary of the Treasury) recruited
James Madison and John Jay (another New Yorker, and later the first Chief
Justice of the Supreme Court) to draft a series of essays that would argue in
favour of the Constitution.
Of the 85 Federalist Papers that
exist, 77 were printed in prominent newspapers in the battleground states between
October, 1787 and August, 1788, all under the pseudonym “Publius” (as was common
practice at the time). These essays addressed the Constitution section by
section in an attempt to explain to the public how every element had been carefully
considered, and how all of the states stood to benefit from its adoption. Federalist
No. 10, the first of 26 that Madison contributed, was first published on
November 22, 1787 and addresses the question of how a republic, which as a
species of government is particularly receptive to the public will, could
effectively guard against the excesses of factionalism. Having served in the
Congress of the Confederation and the Virginia House of Delegates, Madison had
seen first-hand how destructive legislative majorities could be when they
disregarded the rights of minorities and gave themselves over to popular
passions at the expense of the common good. His Federalist No. 10 sought to
address what he perceived as the over-abundance of democracy in the United States,
the role that factions played in exploiting it, and how the Constitution could
and would provide an effective remedy if ratified and adopted.
No comments:
Post a Comment