Home Table of Contents
Previous Chapter Next Chapter
Chapter 3
The Writing and Ratification of the American Constitution1
The Constitution of the United States begins with the words,
“We the people of the United States...”. The Constitution was written
in the name of the people, all of the people. But the fifty-five, white,
male aristocrats (the founders) who participated in the Constitutional
Convention in 1787 were, as a body, very unrepresentative of the great body of
American people who were mainly craftspeople and farmers.
As members of the aristocratic class, the education, beliefs,
ideals, and goals of the founders were very similar, and their views were very
unrepresentative of the people as a whole. While our modern politicians publicly
blush or fume and privately wink at the notion of class, a social stratum
sharing basic economic, political, or cultural characteristics, and having the
same social position, the founders did not. They believed in class. They
believed that the main purpose of government was to resolve the opposing
interests of different classes of people. They believed that the differing
economic and social classes were the natural order of things or the result of
God’s will. They believed that their being in their aristocratic stations in
life was a natural or God ordained right. They considered themselves to be
superior to and the betters of the great sea of common folk around them. Many of
them loathed and feared the masses. Some among the aristocrats even believed the
masses were placed there for their use like cows and chickens.
Those among the aristocrats who were the most strongly
motivated, who pushed the hardest for a convention, who came to the Convention
the most prepared, who participated most actively at the Convention, who got the
most of what they wanted written into their Constitution, and who worked the
hardest to get the Convention’s resulting constitution ratified
were the most extreme in their views against the rising tide of democracy
at the state level resulting from ideas learned and embraced by the great body
of people during the Revolutionary War.
Although the founders debated long and hard over the details of the government they were designing—which branch should hold
what powers, what should be the balance of power between state governments and
the federal government, etc.—they were in tune with each other as to their
ultimate goals for their government in the making.
Some of their goals would as a matter of course benefit all of
the people. As the British made their exit at the end of the Revolutionary War,
we needed a government to fill the vacuum, and quickly, else there would be
anarchy. The first government that was created, The Articles of Confederation,
was too weak and rigid to achieve its necessary ends. A stronger central power
was needed to regulate trade among the states and with foreign nations, to make
treaties with foreign nations, and to manage the expansion into western lands.
But none of these needs were more pressing and central in
the minds of the founders than one other danger: the increasing expression of
democratic ideals among the common people and their increasing power within the
state legislatures.
Economic depression had followed in the wake of the
Revolutionary War. There was little money to pay bills. Banks were foreclosing
on the mortgages of large numbers of poor farmers and others. Debtors were being
imprisoned.
Increasingly populated by non-aristocratic members, the state
legislatures responded with legislative relief in the form of printed paper
money with which to pay debts and by permitting delayed repayment of debt. These
actions were directly opposed to the economic interests of the aristocratic
class. And other state legislative actions defended the people and attacked the
aristocracy even more directly.
Minor uprisings of the populace had even occurred here and
there. The final straw that struck terror in the hearts of the aristocracy was
an uprising in Massachusetts called Shays’s Rebellion. It was put down soon
and easily enough, but it possibly did more to harden and unify the will of the
aristocracy and to get the Constitutional Convention started than any other event.
The aristocrats in general and the founders in particular
spoke frequently among themselves about our need to prepare for our common
defense against foreign threats and, almost always in the same breath, to put
down internal insurrection and rebellion. While reading about these times, one
finds oneself wondering the obvious: With the thought of internal rebellion
looming so large and frequently in their minds, why were the founders and other
aristocrats not led to question the fairness, justice, and morality of the
social, political, and legal conditions that the aristocracy had imposed on
the common people? But they did not. They knew themselves to be right and their
order to be correct. The people, stirred up by new, democratic ideas spread
during the war, simply needed to be put back into their proper place.
Along with preparing for our common defense, regulating
commerce, and managing our westward expansion, the principal ends of the
Convention were to crush the increasing power of the people, to permanently
suppress democracy, and to ensure the continuance of a political and economic
order favorable to the aristocratic class. While they genuinely worked hard to
create a new constitution for a nation, the founders never lost sight of their
second principal goal: to take care of number one, the aristocratic class. They wanted a democracy of elites so-to-speak within
government, but they wanted that democracy to extend no further.
They ‘foresaw’ that in time relatively few people would
own almost everything while most people would be landless and poor, and they
wanted to protect the “rights” of the wealthy few against the many
poor. They saw this inevitable result as stemming from their own talent, merit,
and superiority. They failed to recognize or admit, at least publicly, that
their traditional body of unjust law and their unjust public and private
institutions might have anything to do with such extremely unbalanced
distributions of wealth. They did not recognize or admit that what they called
foresight might merely be the fruit of their own actions and that other actions
and different institutions might bring a different result. The founders worked
hard to protect the aristocrats against those from whom they had taken and to
whom they had done injury. This
was their idea of a “balanced” government and society. They spoke and wrote lofty words, but this was their
bottom line.
Although speaking frankly among themselves, the
founders and
other aristocrats worked hard before, during, and after the Convention to
carefully craft their words and documents and to guard their true intent from
the common people. And when promoting their completed constitution they employed
every kind of distortion, lie, and manipulation. After all, by hook or by crook
they had to somehow get ratified a document that worked against the common
people’s best interests.
The goals were clear, but the way to achieve
these goals was less clear. Although not equally wealthy, the members of the
Convention were all aristocrats in their thinking and of like mind as to the
ends of their endeavor, but they were less united as to the means.
One group among the founders, the nationalists, wanted to take
sovereignty away from the unruly state governments and to take power away from
the people by creating a new, powerful, sovereign, national government. There was much apprehension among some other members of the
Convention, the federalists, about creating a powerful, sovereign, national
government after our having so recently escaped the clutches of the overly
authoritarian British government. They wanted what we already had in the
Articles of Confederation: a federal government, that is, an association of sovereign
states. But they wanted to strengthen it.
There was also the matter of the Convention’s mandate from
the Confederate congress, which was to suggest to congress amendments to The Articles of
Confederation that would render the Confederation more sufficient to
its task. They had no mandate at all to bypass the Confederation entirely and create a whole new
government. But this was never the intent of the nationalists at the
Convention.
The nationalists won their way and the members of the
Convention proceeded to step all over their mandate. As we shall see later, this
is not the only legality, not to mention morality, that the members of the
Convention tossed aside in their will to achieve their secret goals
behind locked doors. “The people” were
kept ignorant about the true nature and purpose of the constitution and
government that was being created in their name.
Perhaps the greatest blessings for America and its people as a
whole resulting from the Constitution is the internal structure of the
government. The founders created a government with powers divided and balanced
among three branches: the legislative, the judicial, and the executive. Each
branch stood independently of the others, and each branch was assigned
enumerated, i.e., listed, powers (as opposed to general, sweeping powers), some of
which served as checks on the powers of the other branches.
Some among the founders believed that there were only three
fundamental types of government—monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy (which
most of them held in disdain)—and that a balance of these three types should
be included within the government they were creating. In the founders’ minds
the executive branch represented the monarchal aspect and within the legislative
branch the senate represented the aristocratic aspect and the house of
representatives represented the democratic aspect.
While that which is good about the internal structure of the
government that these men created had something to do with their ideals,
philosophies, and interpretations of history, as much if not most of that good
resulted from their distrust of each other’s motives and words and from their
interest in looking after themselves and their home regions.
The members of the Convention were divided against each other
in several ways such as those for a sovereign national government versus those
for sovereign state governments, North versus South, those for versus those
against slavery, commercial and trade
interests versus plantation interests, large states versus small states, those
states that had claims to much western land versus those states that did not, and
those whose wealth was mainly in the form of land versus those whose wealth was
mainly in other forms. (We may, however, safely rule out rich versus poor. The
poor were not present at the Convention. The Convention was a huddle of wealthy
and wealth-favoring men.)
There was much haggling and horse trading over issues such as
these:
Should there be one or two legislative bodies? Should representation in the
house and senate be as equal states versus representation by population, wealth,
or land ownership? Which branch of the government should hold the power of the
purse? How extensive and powerful should be the judicial? Should there be a
single executive or two? Should the executive have a council? What should be the
qualifications for and terms of the various offices? Who may have the power of
the veto over what? And should powers be enumerated versus being granted in a general,
sweeping form? As mentioned earlier, there was much disagreement over a
sovereign national government versus a federal government of sovereign states
and over the division of powers between the national and the state governments.
When the dust settled, representation in the house would be by population as counted by a
periodic census. Representation in the senate would be
as equal states, and its members would be selected by the state legislatures. There would be a single executive whom
the electorate would not elect
and whom they might have to suffer a second term. The executive could
veto legislation but be overruled by a 2/3 vote of both the house and the senate.
The house would hold the purse, but the senate could pilfer it. Judges were to be selected by the president and approved by the
senate. So long as they behaved themselves judges could sit until their last gasping breath and dead
neuron. The powers of each branch were
enumerated, and some limits of their powers were enumerated as well. Enumerated limits were
also slapped on the states; they were chopped off
at the knees but still allowed to hobble around on the stumps. In a census, a
slave
would be counted as 3/5 of a person. It would be nearly impossible to
amend the Constitution and then only by those who populate the seats of
government, which is to say, only by the wealthy. There was no bill
of rights.
The participation in government allowed to the general populace was minimal.
The president was elected by the voting of “electors”
selected by the state legislatures. Senators were chosen by the state
legislatures. Judges were and still are appointed to the Supreme Court by the
president. Only the elite few participated directly in any of these processes.
The general populace was only allowed to vote for representatives for the
house of representatives. The times, places, and manner of electing
representatives were left up to the state legislatures. Generally, the states
limited the franchise, the right to vote, to the participation of that minority
of the population called “free men” which for all practical purposes meant white
men. Women and slaves were excluded. But even all white men weren’t considered
good enough by various elements in the political processes of the states.
Greater insurance of a correct result was thought to be needed. The possession of
various amounts of land or wealth was usually required, and being a member of a
particular religion was sometimes required.
(Throughout our history
roadblocks such as poll taxes, literacy tests, registration at distant places
and awkward times, just plain bullying and beatings, and vote tampering have
been used to prevent the “wrong” persons from voting or their votes
from being counted. The “wrong” persons of course meant people of
color, poor people, or people with a different view than “ours.” Only
educated, wealthy, white men could manage to jump through all the hoops. And, let us
not forget, even they mostly just selected a name from a preselected, short list
handed to them from on high.)
Over a long period of time the franchise (and the right to actually have one’s
vote counted) was reluctantly granted to poor white men, women, and racial and
ethnic minorities that then over the years participated in exercises in futility
as they tried to get their elected ‘representatives’ to really represent them
and government to include their will. It has always been the case
that the elected ‘representatives’ represent themselves and their wealthy
clients first and the electorate and the nation as a whole last. As the franchise
was expanded, power, true power, was shifted away from anything of significance
that the electorate could hope to affect and behind an ever-increasing labyrinth
of complexity and secrecy within government or shifted entirely out of
government into the ever more powerful private corporations and the ever-present
American aristocracy.
One issue debated at the Convention was the
granting to government of broad, “sweeping” powers versus the granting only of
enumerated powers and limits on power. Mostly enumerated powers were granted,
but three very important sweeping powers found their way into the
completed constitution.
One such phrase is “necessary and proper.” It occurs
in the context of an enumerated power giving congress the power to make all laws
necessary and proper to exercise all of its other powers enumerated in the Constitution. Another such phrase is “general welfare.” In the
taxation clause congress is given the power to collect taxes to, among other
things, provide for the general welfare. Another phrase, the “supreme
law” phrase, made the Constitution the supreme law of the land.
The exact meaning of these phrases has been debated by
Americans at the Convention, during the ratifying conventions, and ever since.
Some say they merely grant the power to permit the execution of the enumerated
powers. Others say that they are new, sweeping powers that stand in their own
right. Whatever the arguments, through perpetual congressional reinterpretation
of the meaning of these phrases and judicial reinterpretation of the meaning of
the entire Constitution, the federal government has used them to ever increase
its power until today its power is greatly expanded from its early days. These processes
have also made it possible for the Constitution to still work in a nation that is
radically different from and infinitely more complex than it was at the time
that the Constitution was written.
Turning to the issue of the Constitution’s lack of a bill of
rights, the nationalists argued adamantly that the Constitution inherently
protected the rights of the people, and a bill of enumerated rights was not
needed. This is interesting in view of the fact that the Constitution specifically enumerates several protections and includes other measures that, while they
applied to everyone, were of particular advantage or intense personal interest
to the founders and other aristocrats.
Their constitution protected the right to private
property of which they and their class held a great deal. And they expected
their future aristocratic generations to hold a great deal more. It prevented interference by government in
the obligation of private contracts, that, at least when dealing with the poor,
were almost always obscenely favorable to the rich. It forbade states from
issuing paper money insuring that the large and many sums owed to the wealthy
would be paid in sound money. It forbade states from passing bills of attainder,
which declare someone guilty of an offense without a trial and which was at
times used against the wealthy for their unjust and ruthless practices. It
forbade ex post facto laws, which makes something illegal and also provides
punishment for those who did it before it was made illegal, something that was
at times used within state legislatures against the more ruthless among the wealthy
when their past evil actions came to light. The new government would pay the
state and federal war and other debts that by this time had been mostly bought
from the poor war veterans and others for pennies on the dollar by wealthy
speculators including some of the members of the Convention. The inclusion of
the payment of the public debt would also entice the many holders of the debt
into ratifying the Constitution.
One may agree with all of these protections and
measures. But we should not
overlook that these protections
and measures and others of central
interest and benefit to the founders and other aristocrats found their way into the
constitution while others of equal or greater importance like the freedom of
religion, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom from unreasonable
search and seizure, the right to a speedy and fair trial, and the right to a
trial by jury of one’s peers were strongly opposed and in the end excluded from their constitution.
Some of the legislation passed by the state
legislatures against the interests of the aristocratic class was unsound and
even foolish. But there was much other foolish legislation that happened to be
of no particular interest to the aristocrats for which they saw no need to
include protections against in the constitution that they wrote.
Fearing too much opposition and the possible failure to get
their constitution ratified, the nationalists yielded somewhat and promised to
add a bill of rights after the Constitution was ratified. (After
ratification of the Constitution, to ward off an increasing call for even
stronger measures, the congress of the new national government passed a watered
down version of a bill of rights containing deliberately vague terminology and
omitting certain key phrases.)
The founders had a profound dilemma. How does one create a
constitution for a new government that illegally annihilates the existing
government, favors the wealthy class, and suppresses the budding democracy of a
people, and then get that government and those people to ratify it?
And, besides exceeding the Convention’s mandate, there was
another nasty legal matter to sidestep. Changes to the Articles of Confederation
required the unanimous approval of all of the thirteen states participating in the Confederation
congress. The founders believed that their constitution would never survive such
a demanding requirement. No problem; they simply wrote their own requirements
for ratification of the constitution right into the constitution. Their
constitution would be ratified and their new government born if only nine of the
thirteen states ratified it, and, to bypass both congress and the state
legislatures, which the founders felt certain would not ratify the constitution,
ratification would be done within special state conventions.
By years of unceasing labor and sheer force of will, a small
group of aristocrats, the nationalists, had managed to win a convention against
much resistance, set the agenda for that convention, and gain most of their way
throughout the convention. Now it was time to present their constitution to congress.
Rather than trying to get congress to ratify the constitution, the convention
resolved to simply lay their constitution before congress imploring that it be
sent to the states for ratification. What would congress do with their new constitution? Would their good
fortune continue?
Conveniently, several of the writers of the constitution were
also members of the Confederation congress. Thus, several of those who wrote the constitution
also sat in the congress that was to pass judgment on it. Further, like the
writers of the constitution, the other members of congress were of the
aristocratic class. This group of like-minded men may and did have their
differences of opinion as to the means, but in large measure they agreed upon
their ends.
Even with much commonality of interest, the supporters of the new
constitution could not achieve sufficient unanimity to present a united front to the states.
There were those in congress who still irritatingly
clung to such issues as legality, federalism, and a bill of rights. Rather
than reveal the degree of division among themselves, the congress handed the constitution to
the states without comment.
The proponents of the constitution, in particular the
nationalists, had much going for them. They had been debating and pressing their
views for years. They knew their arguments well. Their leaders were at the
Constitutional Convention, and they were members of congress. They could present a much more
united front than the opposition. The conventions were populated by people
selected by the state legislatures. These people were not unlike the founders
themselves and shared many if not all of the same views. These were the economic
and political movers and shakers of their times. They were well versed in the
ways of political intrigue and manipulation. The conventions took place in the
better areas of eastern, coastal cities far away from the poor, rural, and
western people (which is to say the vast majority of the American population)
that mostly opposed the constitution. They also owned most of the
then existing newspapers.
As if this wasn’t sufficient advantage, the proponents of
the constitution had a bag of dirty tricks that would have been the envy of our
modern politicians. They moved swiftly, pressing for ratification before the
opposition had time to raise an adequate opposition and before most of the
population had time to even read the constitution. What newspapers they
didn’t own they pressured into not printing opposing views. They even managed
to get some postmasters to stall the delivery of the opposition’s mail.
Throughout the years preceding the occurrence of the state
ratifying conventions those who favored a strong, sovereign national government
were called by the name nationalists. Those who favored a federal
government and sovereign state governments were popularly known
by the name federalists, whom the general population most favored. Before the Constitutional Convention had even
concluded, the nationalists published a newspaper article calling themselves the
federalists and the opposition by the name anti-federalists whom the
nationalists-turned-federalists painted as British-loving enemies of liberty.
The now-federalists used every kind of distortion and lie to
portray their constitution as a benign document that made limited, insignificant
changes. They tried to claim that the constitution created a federal government,
not national at all. One made the claim that the constitution was “purely
democratical.” At times they got physical. In Pennsylvania the federalists
were in the majority but lacked the necessary quorum, so they got a mob to drag
enough anti-federalists to the convention to conduct a vote.
It has been estimated that in several states the majority of
the people, sometimes the vast majority, was against ratification of the
constitution. But these people did not have access to and, therefore, could not
participate in the conventions. The tiny portion of the whole American
population that qualified to vote for delegates to the conventions and who voted
for anti-ratification delegates were often betrayed by their delegates
when the delegates voted for ratification. Remember, even the supposedly
anti-federalist and anti-ratification leaders of the day were usually from among
the wealthier people of their various locales. Foreshadowing the actions of
representatives that would come to populate the new government in the making,
when push came to shove they had
more loyalty to their pocketbooks than to their constituents.
These are the circumstances under which and the methods by
which the aristocrats convened and conducted their Constitutional Convention.
And these are the circumstances under which and the methods by which the
aristocratic minority shoved its constitution down the throats of the American
people.
Home
Table of Contents Previous Chapter
Next Chapter Top of Page
Beyond Plutocracy - Direct Democracy for America
www.BeyondPlutocracy.com
© Copyright 2001-2017 Roger D Rothenberger
Footnote
1 After
completing the first draft of this book, focusing principally on the
biological male dominance hierarchy, its cultural expression (the authoritarian
state and plutocracy), our particular American expression of dominance and
plutocracy, and offering a solution for the problem, it seemed that
something was lacking. The work needed a closer look at American constitutional
history than my aging memory could supply. I needed to brush up. As with the
books used by the schools I attended during my youth, most of the works that I
perused concerning revolutionary and constitutional times seemed rather too
worshipful of “our forefathers” and their constitution. And they missed what I
believe to be the most central and important point. Then I discovered (and I now
recommend to everyone) The Making of the American Constitution by Merrill
Jensen, 191 pgs., copyright 1964, published by the D. Van Nostrand Company,
Princeton, New Jersey. Merrill Jensen’s lucid discussion resonated deeply with
my lifelong thoughts. Within his broad and professional discussion I felt that I
was seeing my more narrowly focused views about dominance and plutocracy, though
certainly not my terminology, expressed in terms of the time and actions of the
founders. From The Making and other works I relearned in part and in part
learned anew the principal events of the time and culled certain lists such as
the conditions that brought the founders together, the issues that divided
them, the several advantages the nationalists-turned-federalists had and took
during ratification, and the often questionable means they used to achieve their
often questionable ends. 1
|