The elite class employed the Constitution to protect the rights of Americans and ensure the enduring existence of the nation throughout centuries. As chaos ensued in the United States government during the time of the Articles of Confederation, it became imperative to establish a stronger and more centralized government that promotes democracy. To achieve this goal, regulations and restrictions were implemented by members of the elite class to safeguard citizens’ rights from an oppressive government.
The Articles of Confederation resulted in a weak government with no executive or judicial branches, leading to a lack of enforcement powers. This newly formed government also lacked an executive or judicial branch, which meant it had no means of enforcing its decisions. Three issues arose under the Articles of Confederation that prompted the need for change. Firstly, the government was unable to safeguard citizens’ property and rights. Secondly, the society established under the Articles of Confederation lacked mechanisms for promoting commerce and trade between states. Lastly, the government did not possess enough money or authority to provide adequate national defense (Dye 65-66).
The interference of local authorities with interstate commerce hindered the plans of traders and commercial men to engage in national-scale commerce. The currency situation, both within the states and at the national level, was in a chaotic state. Creditors were discontented with the devalued paper money that had been printed by the agrarians, who were also pressuring their borrowers to accept it instead of specie. Furthermore, impoverished small landowners were unable to market or exchange the goods they produced on their property with other states.
The loss of land in Massachusetts in 1786 was a result of the “muddled currency.” At that time, Continental army veterans were unable to settle their debts with the paper money provided by the Continental Congress. This bankruptcy caused a major rebellion led by Daniel Shays. Although the rebellion was easily suppressed, it raised concerns about the absence of a national government. If Daniel Shays had managed to gather more people and greater firepower, it is possible that the rebellion could not have been easily crushed by the small number of farmers and townspeople. The States could not tolerate anarchy (ShaysNet).
James Madison acknowledged that liberty is essential for a faction, comparing it to how air fuels fire. However, he also recognized that removing liberty completely would eradicate factions, but it is impossible to eliminate the causes of faction. Therefore, he proposed that controlling the effects of faction was the only solution. Madison and the elite class observed how the Articles of Confederation disrupted the majority of American society by granting excessive freedom, hindering progress. As a result, they concluded that establishing boundaries on liberty through a new system of government would be in the best interest of all Americans (James).
When creating the Constitution, there were differing opinions on the functioning of the newly established government. Alexander Hamilton advocated for a powerful central government where a Senate and executive authority were selected through indirect election for life, thereby establishing an aristocracy.
George Mason, a Virginian anti-federalist, objected to the final document due to his apprehension that it may result in the establishment of an aristocracy. Furthermore, he insisted on the inclusion of a declaration of rights and expressed dissatisfaction with the legislature’s neglect in prohibiting slave imports, which he perceived as detrimental to the nation’s ethical principles.
The government’s actions are limited by the Bill of Rights, as it can only act if authorized by law. If there is no law allowing the government to censor the press, then doing so would be unlawful. The Constitution was opposed by Mason and other anti-federalists because it permitted slave importation for an additional twenty years. This provision was crucial in ratifying the Constitution since without it, the South would have voted against it, preventing the necessary three-fourths majority vote. Although including slave importation was not ideal, it was necessary to gain support from the South. Charles A. Beard criticizes those responsible for creating the Constitution for including this provision.
“I believe in the infallibility, all-encompassing wisdom, and boundless goodness of the late convention. This means that I have faith in certain individuals possessing flawless characteristics to such an extent that making mistakes or having malicious intentions is completely impossible.”
According to the Anti-Federalist, I believe that most people lack the ability to make decisions about their own immediate concerns and should instead follow the opinions of those superior to them. I endorse aristocracy as the best form of government and argue for removing trial by jury and freedom of press from all governments. Furthermore, I strongly believe that the new constitution will be a stronghold of liberty, a solution for suffering, a symbol of justice, and an extraordinary occurrence for humanity.
Patrick Henry, an anti-federalist, expressed his belief during the Virginia Convention that the newly proposed Constitution would enforce laws similar to those of England. Here is a snippet from Henry’s speech delivered to the founders:
The concept of democracy states that the majority of the community has the right to modify it, which differs from the perspective of freemen who believe a small minority can impede the well-being of the majority. Thus, I am astounded and bewildered by gentlemen who willingly allow themselves to be oppressed and burden their future generations based on this belief. If this truly reflects the opinion of the majority, I must admit defeat. However, it seems perilous and disastrous to me, although perhaps my age influences these thoughts. Such sentiments may be typical for someone like me whose American spirit has waned and mental faculties have deteriorated like a decaying body. If only a portion of America’s population, whether one in twenty or one in ten, is entrusted with making amendments, then your liberty is forfeited forever (Yesterday’s).
Despite some problems in the Constitution of the United States of America, its effect on society was significantly more positive than that of the Articles of Confederation. The Constitution successfully eradicated the disorder that prevailed under the Articles. Though slavery and slave trading persisted for a considerable period, they were ultimately abolished, even though it required violent measures. While American history has not always been characterized by joy, the approval of the Constitution remains one of its most remarkable accomplishments.
Bibliography
The sources mentioned are “Politics in America – Third Edition” by Thomas R. Dye, published by Prentice, Inc. in New Jersey in 1998, and “James Madison: His Legacy” from James Madison University. The latter source was translated by Devin Bent and is available online at the James Madison Center website. It was accessed on February 26, 2000, using the following link: http://www.jmu.edu/madison.
ShaysNet provides information about Shay’s Rebellion. The translation is done by Peg Larson and can be found online at Wintergreen Associates. The article was accessed on the Internet on February 26, 2000, and the URL is http://www.shaysnet.com/~shayg/dshay.htm.
The Virginia Anti-Federalist. Online. Internet. 26 February 2000.
The Anti-Federalist website can be found at http://users.erols.com/wmwalkers/anti.html. Additionally, the article “Yesterday’s Anti-Federalist” is available online on the Internet at http://www.no-debts.com/anti-federalist. This information was published on 26 February 2000.
