We have heard a lot in the past year or so about what the Founding Fathers intended and about their vision for us. Many folks have a very romanticized idea of the original Constitution and how it came to be. People keep saying what the founders intended for all of us. I am not so sure many of those people who are making these statements would have even be allowed to vote.
After our Constitution was first ratified, there were significant changes. For instance, senators were not directly elected. The vice president was elected differently also. Many of the fundamentals have changed. Do we really know what those early leaders thought? We can only tell from their essays. letters and of course, deeds.
The Constitution almost never got ratified by all 13 colonies. The state leaders all fought and argued like old grizzly bears. They shouted and raged at each other. The times were not idyllic and full of fifes, drums and tri cornered hats. The nation had national debt almost immediately. We killed Native Americans (and they killed us), squandered natural resources, went to battle with people in other states over just about anything, owned slaves, kept indentured servants, and made sure over half the people in the young country were disenfranchised: Women, slaves, Indians, non-property owners were excluded from voting. Residents of the District of Columbia still do not have full voting rights.
Voting rights has always been an issue. The 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments all played a hand in former slaves being able to vote. Women would have to wait 2 decades into the 20th century to have their rights secured. Native American voting rights were a little more ambiguous. In the early 1800’s religious requirements were dropped as a prerequisite for voting rights. Property ownership and tax requirements were banished by 1850. Literacy as a requirement was banished by 1857. The literacy requirement was implemented to discriminate against Irish-Catholic immigrants. In 1889, a poll tax was introduced in Florida. Our voting laws are still a work in progress as anyone who flipped on a TV could tell last Friday.
There appears to be this national drive to return us to our “Constitutional” roots. For starters, those people who long for the good old days need to accept that the founders really didn’t have intentions for US. Those were just words. Washington and Jefferson, despite being men of means, both had serious personal finacial problems. So did the country.
The founders were watching out for themselves by way of their states. There was no one national goal. There were many different objectives for the young nation. Deals were cut. Compromises were reached. People walked off the job. Many folks think that reading the Constitution makes them experts. Some forget that many legal cases today are built on past cases, and don’t just have a direct line to the Constitution.
All 13 states eventually ratified the Constitution, with Delaware being the first state to do so and Rhode Island being the last. Regardless of one’s feelings about the Constitution, we can all agree that it is the framework for our system of government. Some of us want a strict, literal interpretation. Others of us feel that the Constitution is a living document that flows with the times. Its principles remain firm but new situations present new challenges. Many people see the Bible the same way. Some people view it rigidly and only one way. Others view it as a life lesson. There is probably a high correlation between the way one views the Constitution and the Bible. Just guessing.
If the Constitution was all that cut and dry and clearly understood. there would be no need to even have the Supreme Court, much less the lower courts.
With all due respect, I strongly disagree that there was not a “national goal” involved. The Constitution was written because it had become clear to many of the country’s most prominent personalities that the Articles of Confederation were not working well at either a national or state level and that the powers assigned to the central government and to the various states had to be more clearly defined. Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, Richard Henry Lee, Benjamin Rush, James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, and many others stated this very thing in their personal correspondence to each other and to others. Washington, for one, was absolutely adamant that changes were in order in the best interests of the nation and the people. It was seen as a badly needed national attempt to make fundamental changes in our entire system of governance, with a special emphasis on establishing more clearly the authority of the federal government vis-a-vis the states. That the members of the convention debated, sometimes very bitterly, various proposals to be included in the new document does not negate the fact that most met with a central purpose in mind: a better means of governance.
But those people you named had different goals. That is my point. Very few of them agreed on much of anything.
What do you see as 1 national goal? (other than strengthening the Articles of Confederation and having better governence)
The fact that we don’t agree here probably explains better why we don’t agree on Tea Party issues.
I think Wolverine has this right. An overriding goal, not articulated in a quick phrase, but permeating all of the document, was to put together a national government that worked. The Articles of Confederation simply did not work. Nowhere was this more apparent than in promoting the free flow of commerce among the States. The result was a federal government with a few, specific tasks, but within those tasks, the plenary power to operate without hindrance or interference from local and state interests. The check was that the federal legislature was composed of representatives of localities, particularly in the Senate, where the Senators were essentially (particularly prior to amendment to provide for their popular election) ambassadors for state interests. By and large, it was a very ambitious, but successful project.
As for it being a living document….It is. However, the way to change it is through amendments, not “interpretation.” Yes, the Founders compromised, etc., but their overriding goal was document that could be a rule book for a nation made up of sovereign states. New situations occur. Its our job to use existing Constitutional rules to deal with them via the government, not change the rules in mid-game.
I agree with Scout and Wolverine also. The purpose of the Constitution was to put together a federal government with sufficiently defined powers to be able to govern effectively. But the Constitution was meant to be a “tight” document, which limited those powers to a few, necessary purposes. I think the Framers intended the Constitution to be interpreted literally so as to prevent the unchecked growth of federal power, which is what we are seeing today.
The Framers clearly intended for the Constitution to be amended if necessary. But the change was supposed to occur through an orderly ratification process, not through selective re-interpretation by the Courts.
As Scout mentioned above, the Commerce Clause provided sweeping power to the Federal government in order to promote the free flow of goods/services among the States. But it takes a contortion of logic to relate the free flow of goods/services among the States to a federal mandate for citizens to purchase healthcare insurance involuntarily.
Cargo said:
I don’t think that was necessarily their goal. I think that is the goal that has been attributed to them.
I will agree with Scout that they wanted to put together a national government that worked. I tried to say that in the original post…but they disagreed horribly what that end result should be, based on the needs of their own states. They couldn’t even agree on how strong or weak to make the Federal govt.
I figured this topic would fire everyone up. Glad to see so much strong opinion.
George Washington supposedly didn’t expect the Constitution to last 20 years. I think much of what has been said here is what people believe rather than what the founders might have thought or believed. But that’s history for you. We can only guess and interepret that which is not spelled out and even if it is spelled out…what was meant then might not be what was meant now. Look at those funny S’s that look like f’s.
The Founders were familiar with an powerful central government that was not responsive to the citizenry. That’s what we have now. The Constitution was written to provide a framework for a central government powerful enough to get things done and act as a referee but not powerful enough to trample on the rights of citizens.
@Cargo, but do you dispute that all of the founders didn’t agree? Washington certainly wanted a stronger federal govt than did Jefferson. (and yes, I know he didn’t write the Constitution)
They didn’t all have the same goals. They have been painted from this century to all be in accord. My contention is, they weren’t.
Even Jefferson broke his own states’ rights accord in purchasing the Louisiana Territory.
“Even Jefferson broke his own states’ rights accord in purchasing the Louisiana Territory.”
Actually he did exactly what the Constitution was around for. He represented this union of states to purchase land on our continent from a foreign entity.
And what happened to the property? It didn’t remain Federal forever but was passed onto the public and eventually formed more states.
Sounds like the Constitution worked.
However, Jefferson wrestled with the question of constitutional authority to buy the land. He didn’t feel he had it and he felt it was too good of a deal to pass up waiting until the Constitution could be ratified giving him the authority to increase the domain of the United States by treaty.
Nice debate but in the final analysis, although Jefferson at one point questioned the constitutionality, he did it by treaty which was required to be ratified by the Senate. At the time the Senate was appointed by the individual states and thus were the States’ representatives. In that sense, the States approved the purchase. That is why most actions require the involvement of the Senate and not the House. Senators, however elected, represent state-wide elected officials, which is why two senators can be from the same area of the state, even the same city.
The purchase did not take place until the Senate (and therefore the States) ratified it.
A couple of points here:
(1) Scout nailed it with his reference to the impeded free flow of commerce. You should also throw in monetary policy and the declining value of our national currency as an outflow of that problem. The period of the Articles of Confederation gave us that old phrase “not worth a Continental.” Although some anti-Federalists tried to claim that the members of the Philadelphia Convention had exceeded their authority by writing a new governing document instead of amending the Articles and that the convention was composed of propertied aristocrats with an agenda, the fact is that the flawed commercial and monetary systems engendered by a weak central authority were hurting the American people at all levels. Commerce was a key issue. Most people do not realize that there were only 12 states at the Philadelphia Convention. Rhode Island refused to send a delegation and then refused to hold a state convention to decide on ratification. In fact, Rhode Island refused to ratify until May of 1790 and only then because the U.S. Senate passed a bill severing commercial relations between the United States and Rhode Island, if you can imagine that. There it was again: commerce.
(2) I also think there is a tendency to over-magnify just a bit the intensity of the controversies surrounding ratification. Yes , there were strong debates between the pro-Constitution and anti-Federalist factions; but this did not turn into a mob scene. In fact, these debates have become some of the absolutely most important reading in American and even world political history. In August 1788, in the midst of the ratification process, Washington wrote the following to Sir Edward Newenham: “You will permit me to say, that a greater drama is now acting on this theatre than has hereftofore been brought on the American stage, or any other in the world. We exhibit at present the novel and astonishing spectacle of a whole people deliberating calmly on what form of government will be most conducive to their happiness; and deciding with an unexpected degree of unanimity in favour of a system which they conceive calculated to answer the purpose.”
(3) Well, just how intense was the debate? Only nine states were needed to ratify the Constitution and authorize the immediate establishment of a new Federal government to supercede the U.S.Congress under the Articles. Agreed that the anti-Federalists came out of the woodwork in droves and provided some fierce arguments both in public print and at at the state ratification conventions; but it was not, in my opinion, a case of “old grizzly bears” fighting it out all over the place. The draft was sent to the states on 20 September 1787. Delaware was the first to ratify –unanimously on 7 December. Pennsylvania came in only five days later at 46-23 after a sharp debate with the anti-Federalists. New Jersey and Georgia followed in December 1787 and and January 1788 — both unanimously. Connecticut came in on 9 January 1788 with a wopping 128-40 in favor. Maryland followed in April 1788 witha 63-11 vote. Within seven months of issuance, we already had six of the nine votes needed. In August 1788, South Carolina came in at 149-73 after overcoming efforts by anti-federalists to prevent the holding of a state convention. Now you had seven of nine.
(4) Where were the hangups? In the “big” states: Massachusetts; Virginia; New York. Throw into that mix two smaller states: New Hampshire and North Carolina. There were a variety of reasons for dissent but I have found one very common theme: In each of these states there was a dissatisfaction with the fact that the Philadelphia Convention had failed to include a bill of rights to protect the states and the people from federal power. The first North Carolina convention failed to ratify over that very issue. Massachusetts was definitely hung up over it. It was present in Virginia and also New York, although New York seemed to want to delay until they saw the direction Virginia would take. New Hampshire also had reservations about the lack of a bill of rights. The Philadelphia drafters recognized the problem and made a solemn oath to add a bill of rights as soon as possible. So, let me back up a bit. Maryland was the Number Eight vote of nine. Number Seven was actually Massachusetts in February 1788. None other than Samuel Adams used the promise of a bill of rights to bring in the vote at a close 187-168. When New Hampshire followed suit in May 1788 as Number Nine, the deed was done; and we had authorization for a new government. The arguments in New York, Virginia, and North Carolina had become technically academic although still critical to national unity.
(5) All the remaining dissenters eventually fell into line with the exception of Rhode Island. Where Moon saw the “old griizzly bears” was right here in our beloved Old Dominion, when James Madison (pro) engaged in verbal battle in the ratifying convention with none other than Patrick Henry (con) (Boy, would I have liked to have been a fly on the wall for that one!!) Madison won it narrowly 89-74. New York followed quickly at 30-27 (the closest of all the votes) when Hamilton succeeded in convincing some ot his staunchest opponents. North Carolina came in immediately after the Bill of Rights was actually written by the new U.S. Congress and submitted to the states in November 1788.
(6) So, in my opinion, Moon was right in a sense that there were some strong objections and some strong arguments. But, when I look at the rest of the world of that time, I am as astonished as Washington was that our national argument did not include pitchforks, torches, and guns. In fact, Jefferson’s argument that democracy needed to be leavened from time to time by the shedding of patriotic blood was not exactly welcomed by some, especially by those who witnessed Shay’s Rebellion in New England during the Confederation era. In fact, in January 1787, Abigail Adams in London sent a letter to Jefferson in Paris which really took the latter to task on that very subject. Now, Jefferson was probably right in my opinion with regard to those times when the people are facing a genuine possibility of losing their liberty; but otherwise I tend to side with “Dear Abby” on this.
(6) Massachusetts, Virginia, New York, New Hampshire, and North Carolina all had another thing in common: With their ratifications they sent in lists of recomended items for the Bill of Rights, Virginia no less than 20 proposed articles. Another little tidbit: the list of proposed articles sent in by the Mass. ratification convention under the leadership of Sam Adams contained one which actually became Amendment X of the Bill of Rights, the same article which is a centerpiece of our contemporary arguments over the limits of federal power.
Let me try to get that tally correct: Delaware: No.1; Pennsylvania: No 2; New Jersey: No.3; Georgia: No.4; CT: No 5; Mass: No. 6; Maryland: No. 7; South Carolina: No. 8; New Hampshire: No. 9; YOU ARE A WINNER! Virginia: No. 10; New York: No. 11; North Carolina: No. 12; Rhode Island — the caboose at No. 13.
But did everything agree or did some think the purchase was overreaching?
According to landandfreedom.org:
Don’t get me wrong…I think the Louisiana Purchase and subsequent Corp of Discovery are the neatest thing since sliced bread. My only point is that at the time it happened, some 10 years after the Constitution became the law of the land, even Jefferson questioned the constitutionality of the action. Not everyone agreed then and they don’t now. Jefferson bent a little to get something done that he felt needed to be done. Today we applaud him for his efforts. It altered the course of our nation. Back then, over 200 years earlier, there were those who questioned the deal and who questioned the legality.
Funding the Corp of Discovery was also a little iffy also, on all counts. I am not sure all those people ever got all their payment. Some of it was in land. Some cash.