The Constitutional Framers - Essay Example

The Constitutional Framers A declaration of independence in America was signed in 1776, this meant that the 13 colonies were identified as independent states and were no longer under the elm of King George III. In the same year July 12 the congress adopted a new confederation article which was actually ratified in 1781 by all the states. The constitutional framers had four major goals to draft and implement; strong government that was able to meet the needs of the people, but on the other hand they maintained separate states. I this essay am growing to depict that the constitutional framers had no intentions of promoting democracy rather of protecting their own personalities and wealth (Galderisi 100). At the onset of independence, there existed two categories of parties which facilitated the adoption of the constitution in the country. Each of these parties stood ground on its beliefs. One party propagated for a strong and efficient government while the other pushed for their personal agendas. In this era the boldest and radical thinking individuals were associated with their achievements. Men who stood firm m and led the revolution against Great Britain were individuals who put the society in the front and were ready to protect the doctrines they held. Some individuals in the society stressed and fought for individual rights in the society. Thomas Jefferson and Samuel Adams were a category of persons who believed that a monarchy government was the strongest. According to them, they felt that the best system of governance was one which controlled the least. They related a successful government to its controlling power and its choices on the people. However, the radicals felt that a highly centralized government was a basis of all evils (Ceaser et al 144). In his statement Jefferson compared the government to a newspaper; he stated that he preferred a newspaper without government to a government without a newspaper. This philosophy was directed towards the American constitution, the confederation act and the declaration of independence in America. The revolutionaries set a system which was too weak to accomplish the set objectives in the country. A clear analysis of their approach could define the motives which lay behind the poor system. They were basically on a quest to defend their wealth against federal interference (Glenn, Brian and Steven 201). Major sectors of the country’s economy were rendered helpless by this group of people who argued that they were acting in the interest of the many. Jefferson states that a man is a rational being endowed with a sense of judgment and hence able to distinguish what is wrong and right. This is a sign that the revolutionaries were concretely aware of their undertakings; they were acting on matters which were clearly established from their inner personalities. The closing of the revolutionary era paved way to another class of thinkers who insisted on a different aspect. At independence the core objectives were to maintain the societal order, settling the public debt, the establishment of a sound financial system and instilling mechanism which could spur the growth of the economy in the country. These categories of individuals were not founding their techniques on philosophy as they were basically business men and individual property owners in the country (Glenn, Brian and Steven 240). These business men had no problems with the government structure, but were concerned with the policies put in place. They felt that the policies functional in the country were curtailing their operations. It made them resist this approach by the government, generally after the civil war the government structure was still very vulnerable and it experienced opposition from each corner. The whole authority in the country was set on a pillar of salt this meant that the whole economy was still struggling and anybody influential could determine its direction. It is at this point that the groups grew more concerned to reconstruct the government and the political system in a manner such that they were able to serve their personal interests first (Galderisi 211). In the state constitution and the confederation articles formulated in the period around revolution, the most powerful and economically stable persons suffered immense losses from the constraints placed on their business. No interests were given to the holders of securities, investors were found off guard, hence hindering their visions and missions. It is this trend which compelled the business personalities to find a way to maneuver through the tough times. Traders found their platform of operating on a national scale which was curtailed by local interference. It is at this time when the national currency was completely brought to its knees and made creditors, angry about the turn of events and began to force all those with debts to pay. The whole economical drama was termed as a war between business and populism in the society (Ceasar et al 220). The authority endorsed by the Article of confederation was a culminated weak and a venerable machine to steer the country forward. It is the same congress of the confederation that came out to criticize the authority in place. However, money was becoming a challenge and the congress passed a resolution to collect duty of 5% on goods. This resolution was not able to pass because some states argued that the congress did not have the mandate to open up the borders. Congress was forced to revise the proposal and forward an alternative approach to the states. This move was meant to collect some import duties on goods; however with the format poorly drafted New York thwarted the move to implement the idea. Frustration engulfed the congress and they began depicting poor services or no mandates of functionality. It is during such times that the people began to see that congress played no role in the country. It is these aspects that saw to a proposal to amend the constitution in 1780 by Alexander Hamilton In 1787, a group of delegates was determined to assemble and come up with a smart approach that will govern the country. This was meant to give more powers to the congress. Alexander Hamilton had taken the initiative to convince the state representatives that it was a prudent idea to come up with a list of professionals who could help amend the constitution. The motives, however, behind the whole idea were personal and never a national interest. The constitution makers were a complete representation of the country’s interests. They were a direct mirror of commercial and financial aspects suffered by the country. The conservative interests were made to establish a strong government, which was able to pay its debts, enhance interstate interactions, ensure a friendly platform of trade, uphold national defense by improving the army and stabilize the national currency. However, the radicals like Henry and Jefferson were not present in the convention which sends a lot of signals about the whole process (Glenn, Brian and Steven 270). The convention designed a government that was capable of taking care of the issues which had arisen during the confederation. Deciphering from the history of the country they feared that the rights or obligations of the minority in the society will be subdued if they adopted a majority rule. It was also clear that the rights of fairness had not also been adopted in the society. The society relied on the few influential individuals who succeeded at the expense of the weak. The government was in the hands of a monarch, which was in essence the ruling class, they depicted the other people as less fortunate who was supposed to pay taxes, carry arms and protect the rich and uneducated with no future prospective of improvements (Galderisi 230). It’s imperative that very instance of the records brought upon in the convention which was held in Philadelphia, democracy or equality were not critical issues addressed this is because few individuals in the society were striving to survive. They held all the resources and political wisdom to establish a system of governance which was to be efficient and stable. This was tactically done to safeguard the minority group in the society and ensure that the majority lay down and their voices suppressed (Ceasar et al 300). Mr. Gerry a republican confesses that the system allowed a whole flow of the evils which were beyond democracy. According to him, there is a huge danger in leveling spirits in the society. Mr. Randolph observes that the best option is to formulate the evil which the US had trudged on all through the years he depicts that tracing these evils will like opening up new wounds. It is Hamilton’s comments which greatly infer the whole situation in society, he says that the society often divides itself into two; few and the many. It is the few who control the money because they are richer and have enough resources (Galderisi 289). In conclusion, from the above discussion, it is clear that the constitutional framers succeeded in coming up with a constitution which was to serve the country and improve its functionalities. However, these individuals were merely acting on their personal interests. They stipulated policies to their advantage. What they all wanted was a protection of their personal properties from the influence of the masses. According to them, the masses were a likely threat. Works cited Ceaser, James W, Jack N. Rakove, Nancy L. Rosenblum, and Rogers M. Smith. Nature and History in American Political Development: A Debate. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press, 2006. Internet resource. Galderisi, Peter Documents of Native American Political Development: 1500s to 1933. Oxford: Oxford University Press, USA, 2009. Internet resource. Glenn, Brian J, and Steven M. Teles. Conservatism and American Political Development. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009. Internet resource. Read More