The Constitutional Convention - Essay Example

? Order#514476 Articles incorporated in any Constitution are not revelations of the Perfect Masters/ the Realized Souls. The Founders of a Constitution are normally learned individuals, politicians, think-tanks, legal luminaries etc. To say that they are infallible human beings is a fallacy. They do the best as per the demands and compulsions of the time, to the best of their abilities and judgment and finalize the Constitution normally after prolonged discussions, often consisting of several sessions. No Constitution would last for a very long time without subsequent amendments as per the changing times and situations. On cannot say whether the members of the Constitution drafting committee function as per their free will or under duress. What did the framers of the American Constitution hope for? The Constitution evolved beyond the expected lines of the individuals who drafted it. They believed that the Office of the President would be the ceremonial one; but the President has emerged as the “all-powerful” individual, and the centre around which the important policies are made and unmade. They discredited then political parties, but that observation also has proved without any merit. Both Republicans and Democrats have served the Nation well by carrying out their constitutional responsibilities. After the Revolution, the newly independent United States, raveled in that newfound political arena, at the same time, it was the trying and testing time for the country. The birth pangs of the newly born Nation were not unexpected, but facing problems and finding solutions to the grim issues was a tough option. Freedom brought forth to the surface an avalanche of issues. Firstly, a strong federal structure to bind all the states was not there. In the period 1776-1787, interstate conflicts of a severe dimension surfaced forth, besides the usual weakness of the armed forces and economic ills. The country’s unity was in peril. Carol Berkin depicts the developments in that extraordinary tough era, and how the Nation comes to terms with its grim realities, with the efforts of the extraordinary men like George Washington, James Madison etc. They assembled at Philadelphia in 1787 to find a worthwhile answer to the highly confusing political situation. The issues that rattled the minds of the delegates before they reached Philadelphia: Independence is the most welcome development in the life of an individual and the nation to which one belongs. America too readied to bask in the glorious sunshine of the newfound freedom but had to tackle the thickening dark clouds over its horizon. The issues before the Nation in 1786 were without a parallel in the history of America. The withdrawal of protection by the British Navy crippled America’s foreign trade avenues. The defense forces withdrew support to the settlers and this endangered their life and property as the native population would not let go the opportunity to attack the white settlements and reclaim which was theirs not very long ago. Once the military campaigns were over, they left the trial of devastation and the population in those areas was without any means of survival. Their homes stood destroyed and they had no financial means to reconstruct them. A pall of gloom enveloped everywhere. Government treasuries were empty with no immediate scope to replenish it; no authority was willing to take the responsibility of rebuilding the finances in such a grim situation. Elucidating it further Berkin writes to remind, “Thus if an uprising such as Shays’s Rebellion happened again, or if a slave rebellion began, no state would be left to handle it alone.”(p.155) The problems with the framers of the American Constitution, according to Carol Berkin, were i) the deep distrust of the states and their sharply differing views as for demarcation of power sharing between individual states and the national government. ii) Strong pessimism as for the intrinsic capacity of the constitutional provisions to forestall tyranny; the states feared that they may have to compromise the principles that were dear for their honorable functioning and survival iii) how the powers of the presidency reached to the level, far beyond the expectations of the framers of the constitution in many important areas, and the character of the present US federal government. The deliberations were full of hurdles and the fearsome debate continued during the sixteen weeks in session, and ratification by the states was a hard fought battle by itself. It was no ordinary achievement in the political history of America. Berkin highlights the key roles played by some delegates viz. Gouverneur Morris, James Madison, James Wilson and Roger Sherman. Referring to the success of Gouverneus Morris she writes, “ He scandalized the convention's proper New Englanders by his open philandering, although he won the admiration of the more worldly New Yorkers and South Carolinians, who marveled at the success in the boudoir of this fleshy middle-aged man hobbled by a wooden leg."(p.53) Addressing the predicament of the nationalists she observes, “"The nationalists were fortunate that Luther Martin did not do battle with them in a sober state"(p.61) His tirades were on the strength derived by the number of pegs of alcohol he consumed. About Washington’s condition while delivering his inaugural address, she observes thus: “His hands trembling and his voice unsteady, Washington described his election as a “vicissitude” than a delight and spoke frankly…” (p.201) Role of Washington in the process of framing the Constitution: The role of Washington in the ratification battle was a matter of controversy according to Berkin. Berkin opines that privately he was supportive of the agenda of the nationalists. In contentious debates Washington did not play any direct role. Was it a deliberate arrangement? Was he not finding any supporters for the line that intended to toe?During the active proceedings of the debate Washington preferred to remain silent, and that strategy paid off in the long run, as he was the person acceptable to the hostile camps. His capacity to influence the individuals that did not agree with the points of view of each other was commendable. He enjoyed tremendous goodwill and influence in the political circles. He only spoke to the point on the final day, over a minor issue; otherwise he was the silent spectator during the 16 weeks. Berkin explains his attitude thus: “Washington felt it necessary to explain his sudden, active participation in the debates. Up until this moment, he had felt his position in the president's (of the convention) chair required his silence." (p.165) He did not choose the official channel but the private conversation to lobby, when he was not occupying the official chair of the convention. He became more and more persuasive during the ratification exercises. Berkin writes, “The usually stoic Washington made no effort to disguise his hopes for ratification. `I never saw him so keen for anything in my Life,' a Virginian told Thomas Jefferson."(p.181) But he was democratic in the real sense of the term, he exercised great caution not to put pressure on any member of the convention. Whether it an omission or the quality of a great statesman, the historians will have to explain. The backgrounder information prior to the Constitutional Convention and ratification of the Constitution: In the year 1786, America was celebrating the 10th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence. Then new nation was also on the threshold of the 3rd year of their newfound independent existence. But something had gone terribly wrong somewhere and the nation was moving listlessly without the destination! The most prolific and popular leader George Washington was a disappointed man. Another Virginian James Madison entertained grim views on the continuance of the confederacy. William Livingstone in New Jersey gave just a decade before which the Republic will disintegrate. From Massachusetts the bookseller turned Revolutionary strategist, Henry Knox, declared, "Our present federal government is a name, a shadow, without power, or effect." (p.12)And feisty, outspoken John Adams, serving as the American minister to Great Britain, observed his nation's circumstances with more than his usual pessimism. The United States, he declared, was doing more harm to itself than the British army had ever done. Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, James Monroe, Robert Morris-in short, men from every state-agreed that a serious crisis had settled upon the nation. The question was could they do anything to save their country? (p.12) The state governments, the real powerhouses, suffered from ill will and wished to exploit the weakness of the neighboring states. Formerly, there were trade restrictions imposed by the British. Now, the States between themselves created competitive restrictions. Interstate commerce became more troublesome and the procedures baffled the traders and proved to be a source of discouragement. Each state tried to cash upon the weaknesses of the other states, and their economic disadvantage was exploited to the maximum extent. More trouble was in store for the states. The states began to enact laws like sovereign countries. The leaders forgot the hard path they tread to wrest independence from the British and to work for selfish aggrandizement turned out to be the policy of the states. Each state insisted on issuing its own currency, and goods to be dispatched through different states became nightmarish experience. Chaos in the mercantile system ensued, and each state viewed the economic policies of the other with mutual hatred and suspicion In what ways Carol Berkin’s description of the process, goals and results differs from the book entitled, “The Glorious Cause: The American Revolution, 1763-1789” by author Robert Middlekauff?” The scope to write differently on such a technical subject is limited and the historical storyline of both the authors is the same as for the goals, the process and the Constitutional Convention. The style of writing varies, but this cannot be categorized as the substantive difference. Both the authors have some scope to expand the flight of their imaginations as for theme of secrecy surrounding the 16 weeks deliberations, which were held under the closed doors. Berkin writes, “…veil of secrecy had not been pierced during the months of deliberations, and although newspaper editors might have spread unfounded rumors or made unsubstantiated comments.”(p.157) She further concludes her observations about the secrecy aspect by writing that “…charges and private citizens might have conjectured and offered unsolicited advice, "everyone outside Independence Hall had remained in the dark about the convention's deliberations and their outcome".(p.157) The scope of the two books/authors The scope of Midddlekauff’s book is extensive and that of Berkin relates to The Constitutional Convention and the Ratification only. The former’s is a book of military history, and only two chapters are devoted at the end of the book (Chapters 25 and 26) to the process of drafting the constitution and ratification. He doesn’t give importance to social, economic and political domains that were prevailing in America in those days. Battlefields are more important to him. For those interested in military history this book serves the purpose well and for those who need to know the constitutional history should stick to Berkin. As stated above, Middlekauff takes up Constitution in the 1787 Philadelphia Convention and the struggle over ratification at the concluding chapters in his book but when he does it, he does it brilliantly. In this small paper, it is not possible to go into the depths of the 16 day’s deliberations of the galaxy of leaders, but suffice it is to judge the acumen of the writer, as he singles out two very important issues out of the deliberations. Drafting of the constitution was a very difficult process. The representatives of the State of Virginia created lots of impediments with their machinations. The subject of gradual emancipation of the slaves was also not handled well. One personality stood out exceptionally well through all the trials and tribulations. His veil of silence was statesmanlike! That was Washington. About him Middlekauff writes, “Washington brought neither a clearly formulated plan of government with him nor a well-articulated political philosophy. He had no taste for theory but he had profound convictions about the need to strengthen the Union, convictions based on far-ranging knowledge of Americans and their institutions.”(p.621)Such an individual was required at the helm of the affairs of the Convention and America got the right man at the right time. Middlekauff at times seems to forget whether he is a writer of military history/constitutional history and dons the garb of a fiction writer. He indulges in personal observations and generalizations. One of his comments goes thus: “Middlekauff does his readers no favor in trying to impress them with his personal observations such as: "Soldiers of all nationalities usually have a special fondness for profanity, and many have a special proficiency in its use" (p. 419). Another important difference as for the contents of the two books is, Middlekauff cites religion as one of the important reasons for the Revolution and this problem impacted subsequently in the discussions during the Constitutional Convention of 1787. In some of the colonies the Church played the active political role by collecting taxes. Clear distinction and differences existed amongst the black and white clergies. References Berkin, Carol: A Brilliant Solution: Inventing the American Constitution, Mariner Books, October 20, 2003. Middlekauff, Roberet, The Glorious Cause: The American Revolution, 1763-1789 (Oxford History of the United States), Oxford University Press, USA; 2 Rev Exp edition, February 1, 2005. Read More