framers – U.S. to 1877

Warning: Undefined variable $num in /home/shroutdo/public_html/courses/wp-content/plugins/single-categories/single_categories.php on line 126

Warning: Undefined variable $posts_num in /home/shroutdo/public_html/courses/wp-content/plugins/single-categories/single_categories.php on line 127

In Alfred Young’s essay, “The Pressure of the People on the Framers of the Constitution,” he wrote about the influences from people that were not present at the Constitutional Convention. Young related the influences to the “ghosts” of Thomas Paine, Abraham Yates, Daniel Shays, and Thomas Peters (150). At the convention, radical democracy, new men in power, rebellion, and slaves were all current issues that the delegates were familiar with and that needed to be addressed. Young says that the delegates dealt with these issues either with coercion or accommodation. Additionally, the delegates had to balance their own political views with the needs and desires of the people, as mentioned in the post (http://sites.davidson.edu/his141/the-constitution-the-intentions-of-the-framers-and-the-realities-of-the-new-government/). The concerns of farmers and slave rebellions were handled with coercion, and the delegates “gave the national government the power to ‘suppress insurrections’ and protect the states from ‘domestic violence’” (Young 151). This method of approaching slave revolts and other rebellions does not seem to have changed much over time. The difference is that now the federal government can use force to “suppress insurrections,” whereas before, the task was delegated to individual slave owners or British officials. The federal government later abuses this power during the Whiskey Rebellion, and they use full force to put down a relatively small revolt.

Also, I found the concept of a “”mixed government”” interesting (Young 150). It seems that the founding fathers were still attempting to remain connected to their British roots by striving for “a perfect blend of ‘aristocracy’ and ‘democracy’” (Young 151). Even after the revolution, the delegates showed through the Constitution that they did not perceive Britain’s system as completely flawed when they strove to keep the idea of aristocracy alive.

Alfred F. Young’s essay “The Pressure of the People on the Framers of the Constitution” focuses on the factors that the framers dealt with in order to create the document that governed the country. Most of the hard decisions the framers had to make came down to balancing the knowledge that these elite men had with the voice the Revolution had promised the people. Certain delegates, like Hamilton, wanted the government to benefit themselves more, which was exemplified in his proposal for a president and senate who served for life, the model of the English government that had helped his family gain wealth and prominence. James Madison fought more for the people, making sure the Constitution would reflect the “genius” of the people in order for the document to last well into the future (Young 149). While we often see Madison as the hero of the common people, I liked how Young also described how he could not always accommodate the people, and how his elite place in society sometimes affected his ideas. In an effort to curb the power of the state legislatures, Madison wanted a national veto over the states. This gave a lot of power to the federal government, not necessarily typical to Madison’s goals of giving the people a voice. As an educated man, Madison saw the problems that could come if the people had too much power. This decision was not one of a greedy elitist, like Hamilton, but one of an educated elitist looking out for the best of the country as a whole.

The framers of the Constitution had expectations for the country, but even just a few years after the document’s ratification, the emergence of political parties used those ideals differently than intended. Wilentz notes the importance of linking the political societies who were upset with the Federalist ideas and the growing Republican interest within the government. As a classmate notes (http://sites.davidson.edu/his141/what-is-this-europe/), Wilentz writes of the class struggle for people both in the city and the country. With the establishment of the Constitution, however, these disgruntled people could affect the government by forming political societies and working with government insiders. This connection between the people and the government officials who were both upset with the way the government was working, provided the basis for the start of future political parties. We have to remember, though, how radical the idea of uniting the common people with the government elite still was at the time. In his essay, Jack N. Rakove notes the change from the intended government structure that came with the beginning of the political parties. He writes of Madison’s argument for ambition to “counteract ambition” in the legislatures so the people would benefit in the end (Rakove 158). Yet as the first political parties started to develop, this ambition Madison thought he would see, manifested instead in the representative’s hope for power in the party and society, instead of helping their constituents.

Tag: framers

Influential Ghosts and Coercion

The Constitution: the intentions of the framers and the realities of the new government