The Drafting of The Constitution

 
American Politics
© Marc A. Triebwasser

This lesson was learned early in the history of the American republic. We have already discussed some of the administrative and economic reasons for the movement from the Articles of Confederation to the Constitution, and for the establishment of a stronger central government among the original thirteen states. Many of those who were involved in the national government under the Articles of Confederation simply found their powers too limited to administrate or govern effectively. Moreover, many businesspersons of the day desired a stronger central government in order to establish a better framework for the conduct of business among the various states, as well as with foreign nations. It was for this latter reason that the Constitution enumerates a number of specific powers designed to facilitate business activities.

Such governmental directions were fine for those who were interested in better national administration or in furthering the conduct of business on a broad scale. There were, however, many others who were not particularly concerned with these goals, and who simply did not want to be bothered by central governing authorities. They preferred the rather anarchistic and laissez-faire form of government which existed under the Articles of Confederation, and generally supported the position of the Anti-Federalists. Among those people who did not favor the Constitution were many small farmers, artisans, and tradespeople whose business activities were of a generally local character.

During the late 1700s and early 1800s there thus existed a division of interests not only between the manufacturing North and the agricultural South, but also between the more urbane people living on the eastern seacoast and the more independent mountain folk of Appalachia. It was by and large the people of the eastern seaboard who favored the Constitution and a stronger central government. On the other hand, those who lived in the western mountains of Appalachia were generally opposed to the adoption of the Constitution. In fact, the constitutional conventions in such states as Pennsylvania was convened on such short notice that many delegates from the western part of the state were not able to participate in the vote on ratification. These western delegates, who generally represented small farmers and mountain people, were on the whole opposed to the Constitution. Had they been able to participate in Pennsylvania's constitutional convention, there is a strong possibility that Pennsylvania would not have voted to ratify the Constitution. Thus we see that the Constitution was in no way a universally accepted document, even with the inclusion of the Bill of Rights.

In spite of these differences, the Constitution was finally ratified by enough states to make the new government viable. After ratification, the feeling expressed by many was that no matter what divisions previously existed, the new government of the United States would be one which worked in everybody's interest, and that there was enough opportunity for debate and compromise in the operation of this new government to take all concerns and needs into account. Madison and other writers of the Federalist Papers had expressed deep distress with political factions, or opposing political splinter groups (political parties). This desire for consensus and against division was officially adopted during the period immediately following the ratification of the Constitution.

There was thus no provision made at this time for the operation of political groupings--or, what we would call today, political parties. When both George Washington and John Adams were elected President, there was no official opposition--although during Washington's second term as well as during Adams' administration opposition did begin to emerge. Despite the fact that there had been some rather fierce fighting between the Federalists and Anti-Federalists over the adoption of the Constitution, only one political party existed for a while after ratification: the Federalist. It attempted to function as a party of national unity.

However, as the new republic began to function, a number of people began to feel that the new government was adopting policies which were more generally favorable to the manufacturing and merchant interests, and on the whole unfavorable to those of the small farmer and craftsperson. One of the reasons for this was that the manufacturing and merchant interests seemed to have greater access to the decision-making processes within the new government. There were also many differences of opinion which began to arise over the attitude that the American Government should take towards the Revolution in France.

One example of national policy in which the interests of wealthy merchants and those of small farmers differed widely involved the manufacture of whiskey. This, in fact, was an area of contention which had come to the fore under the Articles of Confederation itself. It was simply much easier for small farmers to distill their grain crops into whiskey locally and transport this product to more distant markets, than it was to try to transport their crops directly. For this reason, it was economically advantageous for the small farmer to be able to manufacture whiskey locally, without any interference from the central government. If these small farmers were not able to engage in such activities and make money more easily, they would have to borrow more money than might otherwise be the case. This, of course, was advantageous to those who were the lenders of money--generally speaking, the banks and more wealthy business persons of the eastern seaboard areas. This latter group was, therefore, in favor of limiting the ability of the small farmer to manufacture whiskey locally, or at least to make such a process more difficult or expensive.

In many ways then, the imposition of a whiskey tax by the federal government in 1792 was seen by the small farmer not only as an invasion of their personal affairs, but also as an act specifically siding with the interests of the more wealthy business persons and lenders of money. For this reason, bootlegging during the early days of this country was not simply an attempt to avoid the payment of taxes, it was in fact an act of political protest. The tradition of bootlegging in this country thus dates as far back as the beginning of the republic and even before then, and may be viewed originally as an act of great political significance. One may even conceive of it as representing an aspect of what we might call the spirits of '76. Those familiar with folk music might well recognize this tradition in the lyrics of one of the songs performed by Joan Baez: "We ain't paid no whiskey tax since 1792."  So, the next time you see a reference to bootlegging on television or in the movies, you might well remember that this practice not only represents an amusing and entertaining incident; it is also something reflective of our nation's early political history.

As a result of this and a number of other differences over economic, social, and foreign policy, many small farmers and craftspersons, as well as other groups of individuals in the late 1790s, pushed for the reestablishment of an opposition force. Out of this pressure, a new political party emerged in the election of 1800: the Democratic-Republican Party led by Thomas Jefferson. This party than took over as the national political party, and also attempted to act as the party of national unity.  Later, in 1828, the Democratic Party emerged and with it a true two party tradition.  Finally, in the late 1850s, the Republican Party evolved. What one sees in this and other developments is the need for the creation of political institutions and processes, outside of formal governmental structures, which are designed to influence the directions that formal governmental structures take.

Until the end of the Civil War, the two-party system which emerged in our nation generally represented a split between the sectional interests of the North and of the South, as well as the economic interests of manufacturers and of farmers. As we shall discuss later, other political institutions outside of formal governmental structures have continued to emerge during our nation's history in an attempt to influence the purposes of the policies formed within our governmental institutions.

The Need for Democratic Social Structures

Thus we see that to talk about democracy simply in terms of governmental institutions is not that helpful. Any discussion of democracy must focus on democratic societies, not simply on "democratic" forms of government--if such terminology is indeed appropriate at all. Robert Dahl discusses this question rather extensively in his work, Modern Political Analysis. Here he points out that in discussions of democracy, we must concentrate not only on political or governmental systems but also on economic and social conditions. In doing this, Dahl cites the work of the famous French writer of the 1800s, Alexis de Tocqueville, and points out:
 

The Drafting Of  the Constitution

Formation Of Political Parties