Building the New Republic

Why did many Americans wish to strengthen the national government?

By the mid-1780s many Americans (like George Washington) were dissatisfied with the Articles of confederation:

• Many were appalled by the powerlessness of the national government in foreign affairs and commercial matters.
• Creditors wanted a national government that would put a stop to what they saw as the irresponsible legislation of states that issued paper money.
• There was a general fear that the Articles’ weakness would result in disintegration and chaos.

American nationalism

While most Americans were primarily loyal to their states, there were distinct signs of growing national consciousness. The struggle for independence had increased the sense of being American. The war, besides mixing men from different states in the Continental army, had produced a crop of national heroes (for example, George Washington) and national shrines (for example, Bunker Hill). National symbols appeared in profusion:

• Congress adopted the Stars and Stripes as the national flag in 1777
• The bald eagle took its place on the Great Seal of the USA in 1782. (Benjamin Franklin, thinking the eagle a bird of bad moral character, would have preferred the turkey as America’s emblem.)

Nationalism inspired the political leaders who led the movement for constitutional reform. Men like Alexander Hamilton, James Madison and George Washington wanted a unified republic that would command the respect of the world – a truly national society in which local and state attachments were subordinate to American loyalties.

Conservative nationalism

Most of the nationalist leaders were men of substance. Some were horrified by the type of men who now occupied so many seats in the state legislatures and even more horrified by what they considered to be the low standards of the consequent legislation. Nevertheless, the nationalists were far from crude reactionaries- – as some historians have suggested. They supported much of the revolution’s central ideology, including popular sovereignty. But they lacked faith in the ability of the common people to exercise careful judgement and abhorred what they saw as democratic excesses in state government. They favoured the creation of a strong national government whose power was vested in the hands of the wealthy and well educated.

Support for the Articles of Confederation

The view that the USA was falling apart was not shared by all Americans. Some believed the Confederation was working reasonably well:

• Americans had gained independence under the Articles.
• State governments were more responsive to people’s demands than ever before.
• A stronger central government might replicate the British government.
• Most Americans equated a high degree of local self-government with the preservation and enjoyment of personal liberty.
• Most state governments muddled along competently enough by eighteenth-century standards.

However, there were too many forces working against the Confederation to prevent the events leading up to the Philadelphia Convention of 1787.

Interstate disharmony

Although state boundary disputes, jurisdictional rivalry and western issues were mostly resolved by 1787, sectional animosity remained a problem, particularly in relation to the levying of tariff duties. From 1782 to 1785 all the states except New Jersey placed duties on imports, affecting both interstate and foreign commerce, for the purpose of raising revenue. By 1786 the New England states, New York and Pennsylvania had increased import duties to make them protective. States put their own interests first: some imposed higher tariffs than others against foreign – especially British – goods.

Virginia and Maryland Agreement

The immediate origins of the Constitutional Convention lay in a dispute between Virginia and Maryland over navigation on the Potomac River. Such interstate disagreements were not uncommon during the 1780s, and the national government was largely powerless to act as an arbitrator in them. In 1784, James Madison proposed that commissioners from the two states meet to negotiate a solution. Meeting at Washington’s Mount Vernon estate in 1785, the delegates quickly reached an agreement on the navigational issues. They then went beyond their brief and suggested that their states should cooperate on financial and customs policy, and recommended that an appeal should be made to Pennsylvania to join in future deliberations on matters of common interest. Madison, who had served in Congress and witnessed its ineffectiveness first-hand, saw an opportunity in interstate cooperation for constitutional reform. In the wake of the Mount Vernon meeting, he proposed a resolution to the Virginia assembly for a national convention to discuss commercial regulations.

The Annapolis Meeting

Madison’s resolution had effect. In September 1786 twelve men, representing five states (New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware and Virginia) met in Annapolis to discuss commercial problems. A meeting of such an unrepresentative body could not propose reforms, commercial or otherwise, to the nation with any credibility. But the Annapolis meeting brought together men from different states who agreed on the need for constitutional change. Most, like Madison, realised that it was impractical to hope for amendments to the Articles by congressional action. The Articles could be amended only with the unanimous agreement of all thirteen states – an unlikely event. The meeting thus proposed that a convention of all the states should be held in Philadelphia in 1787 to redraft the Articles of Confederation

Congress was not at first enthusiastic, but after the shock of Shays’ Rebellion it called on the states in February 1787 to send delegates to a convention in Philadelphia in May ‘for the sole and express purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation.

What were the aims of the Founding Fathers at the Philadelphia Convention and how successful were they in realising them?

Thomas Jefferson described the Constitutional Convention that met in Philadelphia in May 1787 as ‘an assembly of demi-gods’. Many historians have agreed. The Convention delegates (the Founding Fathers) have been seen as intervening at a crucial moment to save the revolution. Their masterpiece – the Constitution – is seen as relaunching the republic and laying the foundation of all that followed. However, there are scholars who view the Convention as a meeting of self-interested elitists who sought – successfully – to undermine the revolution’s democratic principles.

The influence of James Madison

The Constitutional Convention was scheduled to begin its deliberations on 17 May 1787. But when the appointed day arrived, the delegations of only Pennsylvania (the hosts) and Virginia were present. Poor weather and poorer roads delayed the arrival of other delegates. The Virginian delegation contained two key men: George Washington and James Madison. The presence of Washington, the most famous and respected American, would lend credibility to the convention. But Madison was to have a greater impact at the Convention than Washington. Determined to strengthen the national government, he came to Philadelphia with a clear idea of what the thought needed to be done. In a lengthy memorandum, ‘The Vices of the Political System of the United States’, written in April 1787, Madison outlined the need for a powerful national republic with a centralised government. He circulated the memorandum among the delegates. By the time the Convention opened, he was ready to dominate its opening stages.

The Delegates

By 25 May, 29 delegates from seven states had arrived and the Convention, meeting a in the Philadelphia State House, began its work. Over the next few weeks a further 26 delegates straggled in. Every state was represented except Rhode Island, which declined to participate. The 55 delegates brought a broad range of experience in public service:

• All had held public office.
• Forty-two had served in the Continental or Confederation Congresses.
• Three were present and four were former governors of their states.
• Twenty had helped to draft their states’ constitutions.

The Convention was a remarkably talented group – even if it lacked the abilities of Thomas Jefferson and John Adams, who were serving as envoys to France and Britain, respectively. With an average age of forty-two, the delegates were relatively youthful: thirty had fought in the War of Independence, thirty-four had legal training, twenty-six were college graduates; nineteen were slave owners. The fact that there were no black people, Native Americans, women or ‘poor’ was hardly surprising. By law and custom, these groups were outside the recognised polity in eighteenth-century America. Small farmers, artisans and westerners, who had won an increased voice in politics since the 1760s, could not afford the time to attend.

The principles of the Founding Fathers

There was no great ideological rift between the delegates. Virtually all agreed on the necessity to strengthen the central government. But few wished to centralise power to the extent of abolishing state sovereignty altogether. There was general agreement on the need for balanced government. No one branch of government – executive, legislative or judiciary – should be allowed to monopolise power. Most delegates distrusted democracy, believing that government should be in the hands of men with experience and standing, Nevertheless, virtually all accepted that the people must have a voice in government.

Despite a large measure of agreement on principles, there was no unanimity on details:

• While the delegates accepted the need to extend the federal government’s power, they disagreed as to how powerful it should be.
• They disagreed about whether the legislature should consist of one house or two.
• Representation was the most contentious issue. Should all the states be equally represented in the federal legislature, irrespective of size, as was the case under the Articles? Or should representation be based on population, an arrangement which would give Virginia, with 747,000 people (of whom 300,000 were slaves), twelve times as many representatives as Delaware, which had only 60,000?

The Key Men

Apart from James Madison (who spoke 161 times), other key delegates were the Pennsylvanians James Wilson (who spoke 168 times) and Gouverneur Morris (who spoke 163 times). Wilson, who had been born in Scotland, was a successful lawyer. Gouverneur Morris, with a crippled arm and only one leg, was far more vocal than his namesake Robert Morris (ex-superintendent of finance), another of the Pennsylvania delegates. The presence of George Washington and Benjamin Franklin was crucial. Although they rarely spoke, the mere fact that they were present gave the Convention prestige. Washington was unanimously chosen to preside over proceedings.

Economic motivation

In the early twentieth-century , historian Charles Beard depicted the Founding Fathers as reactionaries whose aim was to destroy popular rule. According to Beard, they had considerable investments in certificates of public credit (printed statements recognising that the holders were owed money by the government). They thus stood to gain economically if a strong central government was established. Beard argued that the debate over the Constitution centred on rivalry between the holders of personal property (money, public securities, manufacturing, trade and shipping) and real property (land). By the mid-twentieth century Beard’s thesis had been generally accepted. However, historians Robert Brown and Forrest McDonald (1965) showed that Beard’s research was sloppy. In reality, the Founding Fathers’ capital was largely invested in land, not public securities. Perversely, some of the largest holders of certificates of public credit voted against the proposed Constitution. No one doubts that the Founding Fathers represented the richest groups in the USA or that they were determined to construct a system that would ensure that their wealth was protected. However, economic interest did not determine the framing of the constitution. The Founding Fathers were men of ideas and principles. Most believed that the survival of liberty was at state. Most were also convinced that excessive democracy was as dangerous as the monarchical tyranny from which the Americans had just freed themselves.

The Virginia Plan

The Convention’s first step was to consider a draft constitution, introduced on 29 May. Largely the work of Madison, the Virginia Plan provided for a national legislature of two houses, in each of which representation was to be proportionate to the population. The first house of the legislature would be directly elected by the voters. The members of the second house would be elected from among those of the first. The legislature was to have wide powers: it was to elect both the executive and the judiciary. The states would be reduced to little more than administrative units since the central government was to have the power to veto acts of state legislatures. Given that the Virginia Plan was the first proposal put before the Convention, it set the agenda. For the rest of the summer the delegates debated and amended it. Although significant changes were made to it, it remained at the centre of the Convention’s deliberations.

The New Jersey Plan

Although pleasant to the larger states, the Virginia Plan was bitterly opposed by the smaller ones (whose representatives would easily be outvoted by those of the larger states), as well as by delegates who objected to the amount of power which would be concentrated in Congress. In an effort to preserve the interests of the smaller states, William Patterson (from New Jersey) presented an alternative scheme (on 15 June) providing for a single legislative chamber, in which each state would have one vote. The New Jersey Plan envisaged merely the amendment of the Articles. Although, Congress was to be given enlarged powers, including authority to tax and to regulate commerce, state sovereignty would be largely preserved. Although the Convention rejected the New Jersey Plan on 19 June (by seven states to three), the issue of representation in the national legislature went unresolved. For the next fortnight the issue was debated with increasing acrimony. A Grand Committee, with one delegate from each state, was finally appointed (2 July) to work out a compromise.

The Great Compromise

The Grand Committee’s report is referred to as the Great Compromise. All the states, whatever their population, would have equal representation in the upper house (the Senate). However, the lower house (the House of Representatives) would have proportional representation; larger states would have more representatives. Representation and direct taxation would be distributed according to the results of regular censuses. The Great Compromise was accepted on 16 July, after a fierce debate.

North vs South

The issue of slavery representation divided northern and southern delegates. Southern states wanted slaves to be included in the population total when allotting congressional seats, but left out in determining liability for direct taxation. Northern states, by contrast, wanted slaves excluded from representation, since they were neither citizens nor voters, but included for tax purposes since they were a form of property. The Convention eventually accepted the formula whereby a slave was counted as three-fifths of a person for the purposes of both representation and direct taxation.

Continued debate

The Convention adjourned on 26th July. A Committee of Detail was charged with producing a draft constitution, making sense of the various recommendations and amendments to the Virginia Plan made over the previous two months. The committee worked for ten days, fleshing out many of the Constitution’s features.

Debate on the report of the Committee of Detail occupied five weeks from 6 August to 10 September. During this debate, slavery re-emerged as an issue. The proposed Constitution prohibited Congress from banning the slave trade. Some northern delegates wanted to end the trade. Delegates from the Carolinas and Georgia, by contrast, insisted that their states would never accept the new Constitution if the right to import slaves was impaired. However, it was not simply a case of north vs south. Some northern delegates, more concerned with securing a constitutional settlement than they were with slavery, argued against interfering with the trade. Moreover, some southern delegates wanted to abolish the slave trade, as a shortage of slaves was likely to increase the value of their – excess – slaves. In late August, it was agreed that Congress would not have the authority to abolish the slave trade until 1808.

To what extent was the Constitution a bundle of compromises?

The Constitution proposed a division of authority among the executive, legislative, and judicial branches. The separation of powers was intended to permit the other two branches of government to check the third should it exceed its authority.

The powers of the federal and state governments

Separation of federal powers outlined in the Constitution

The Federal Executive

Executive authority would be exercised by a president:

• He was to be commander-in-chief of the army and navy
• He could make important appointments, for example, judges and diplomats
• He could conclude treaties (in association with the Senate)
• His signature was required to make acts of Congress law
• He could veto acts of Congress (but the veto could be overridden by a two-thirds vote of both houses)
• He could be removed from office only on impeachment for and conviction of ‘high crimes and misdemeanours’

Presidents were to be elected for a four-year term by an Electoral College, to which each state was to send the same number of electors as it had Congressmen.

Amending the Constitution

The founders also specified a process by which the Constitution may be amended. In order to prevent arbitrary changes, the process for making amendments is quite difficult. An amendment may be proposed by a two-thirds vote of both Houses of Congress, or, if two-thirds of the States request one, by a convention called for that purpose. The amendment must then be ratified by three-fourths of the State legislatures, or three-fourths of conventions called in each State for ratification. In modern times, amendments have traditionally specified a time frame in which this must be accomplished, usually a period of several years. Additionally, the Constitution specifies that no amendment can deny a State equal representation in the Senate without that State’s consent.

Criticisms of the Constitution

A common view in 1787 – and one shared by historians since – was that the constitution represented a conservative backlash, curbing a growing democracy:

• The Electoral College would stand between the people and the president.
• Senators would owe their office to the state governments, not direct election.
• Six-year terms would give senators considerable immunity from popular pressure.
• The House of Representatives would represent constituencies as large as 30,000 people, half the population of Delaware.
• The two-year term of its deputies was twice as long as the terms of most state assemblymen.

Historians have attacked the Constitution for its defence of slavery (not changed until 1865). They have also criticised some of the Constitution’s ineffective provisions. The Electoral College has, on occasions, prevented the candidate with the most popular votes from becoming President. The need for a two-thirds approval of the Senate for treaties has handicapped the formulation and execution of foreign policy. It is also possible to claim that the system of checks and balances ensured that nothing much would ever get done. Historian Richard Hofstadter (1948) described the Constitution as a ‘harmonious system of mutual frustration’.

Much of the Constitution was written in general terms and many issues were left open. It was unclear, for example, whether the Constitution should be strictly constructed or more loosely interpreted. More importantly, the boundaries between federal and state power were far from sharply defined. Nor was it clear whether states could leave once they had joined. These questions would provide the staple of constitutional debate for decades to come and were not to be settled until the Civil War (1861-5), a war which cost 620,000 lives.

In practice, the Constitution did not operate as envisaged. The Founding Fathers’ model was parliamentary, not presidential, yet presidents – eventually – came to dominate the political scene. Although the Founding Fathers envisaged that both houses of Congress would be equal, within three generations the Senate, with its longer tenure, had become more powerful than the House. The power of the Supreme Court would also have surprised the Founding Fathers. Since the chief justiceship of John Marshall (1801-35), the Court has regularly pronounced on the validity of Acts of Congress. American political and social advance has thus often been determined more by the pronouncements of judges than by acts of Congress. The Constitution has 4000 words; the Supreme Court’s interpretations of it number over 450 volumes.

Praise for the Constitution

George Washington gave his (considerable) seal of approval to the Constitution: ‘I am fully persuaded it is the best that can be obtained at the present moment under such diversity of ideas that prevail.’ Benjamin Franklin said much the same: ‘I confess that there are several parts of the Constitution which I do not at present approve but I am not sure I shall never approve them… I consent, Sir, to the Constitution because I expect no better and because I am not sure that it is the best.

Nineteenth-century British Prime Minister William Gladstone went further, describing the Constitution as ‘the most wonderful work ever struck off at a given time by the brain and purpose of men’. Arguably, the Founding Fathers’ work was a masterpiece of ingenuity, informed by democratic ideals, which helped to save the American Revolution. The Constitution accepted that the sole source of legitimate political authority was the people: its preamble opened with the phrase ‘We the People of the United States’. All the officers of government were to be agents of the people. The Founding Fathers remained true to the representative principle at almost every point.

The strong national government was still made as weak and as divided as could safely be managed. Fearing tyranny in any form, the Founding Fathers were hostile to the concentration of authority in any one man or institution. They deliberately created a system of checks and balances:

• Executive versus legislative versus judiciary
• House of Representatives versus Senate
• Popular election versus indirect election
• Federal government versus state governments.

At the same time, the Constitution reconciled the interests of:

• Large and small states
• Slave and free states
• Federal government and state governments
• Patrician leadership and popular sovereignty

The fact that the Constitution was a sketch, not a blueprint, was a strength. Much was left for the future to clarify. The Constitution has thus been a living document, constantly reinterpreted and made responsive to new social and political needs. The Founding Fathers’ good sense and political realism are evident from the fact that the Constitution has stood the test of time. With relatively few amendments (27 since 1787), a document devised over 200 years for a small, rural republic is still the fundamental law for the world’s greatest power.

The US Constitution

Follow the link to read the US Constitution – this is a good way to fully appreciate the contents of the Constitution and stretch your knowledge of the different articles.

Why was there debate over the ratification of the Constitution?

When the Convention had finished its work, it transmitted a copy of the proposed Constitution to Congress. On 28 September Congress unanimously voted to submit the document to the states for ratification according to the method outlined by the Convention:

• The new document would become operative when ratified by nine – not all thirteen – states.
• The Constitution would be submitted to specially elected state conventions, not the state legislatures. Such a procedure would confer on the Constitution a status which the constitutions of all but one of the states (Massachusetts) lacked, namely that of being based directly on popular consent. It would also side-step probable opposition from the state legislatures.

Federalists vs Anti-Federalists

The process of ratification provoked fierce debate everywhere. The contest was marked by discourse of the very highest order concerning the meaning of republicanism. It was also marked by cynical political tactics.

Supporters of the Constitution won an important first point when they used the word ‘Federalist’ to describe themselves. The fact that the Federalist opponents were dubbed ‘Anti-Federalists’ immediately cast them in a negative role. According to historian Carol Berkin:

“Perhaps the Federalists most brilliant tactic in the battle of ideas ahead of them, however, was their decision to call themselves “Federalists” and their cause, “Federalism.” The men behind the Constitution were not, of course, federalists at all. They were advocates of a strong national government whose authority diminished the independence of the states. […] By co-opting the name “Federalists,” the pro-Constitution forces deprived their opponents of the ability to signal clearly and immediately what they stood for.”

In the struggle over ratification, the Federalists were most strongly supported by men of property and position: planters, merchants and lawyers. Many of their Anti-Federalist opponents were small farmers, especially from the more isolated regions. But opinion did not divide neatly along lines of class or economic interest. Some rich men were Anti-Federalist. Many poor men, like the labourers and artisans of the cities, were Federalist. Every major town had a Federalist majority.

Anti-Federalists were aware of the problems of the 1780s but believed that the proposed cure was far worse than the disease. Anti-Federalist leaders made several criticisms of the Constitution:

• They claimed that the Convention had exceeded its mandate in proposing a whole new framework of government to replace the Articles.
• They feared that a powerful national government would destroy the sovereignty of the states.
• They argued that state legislatures were more representative of the people than the new Congress was likely to be.
• Many deplored the absence of a Bill of Rights – a list of legally protected liberties such as were added to many of the state constitutions.

Anti-Federalists also raised a host of specific objections, all reflecting a suspicion of centralised power. Federalists addressed the criticisms in hundreds of pamphlets and newspaper articles. Their greatest fear was that rejection of the Constitution would lead to collapse of the Union, anarchy, interstate warfare and ultimately the loss of American independence.

Federalist advantages

It seems likely that at the outset a majority of American voters were opposed to the Constitution. Nevertheless, the Federalists had several advantages:

• They offered a specific set of solutions to the pressing problems that faced the nation. While most Anti-Federalists conceded that some political reform was necessary, they had no alternative to offer the public.
• Federalist support was strong in the towns. Local people thus often gave delegates to state ratifying conventions (which met in towns) the impression that most people favoured the Constitution.
• The support of the two most famous men in America – Washington and Franklin – added to the Federalist cause.
• Anti-Federalist support, scattered across isolated small farms, was difficult to organise.
• The vast majority of newspapers were Federalist owned and inclined. Only five major newspapers, out of approximately 100, consistently opposed the Constitution.

Where their support was strong the Federalists moved rapidly to secure approval, and where it was weak they delayed, allowing themselves time to campaign effectively. The crucial states were the largest ones: Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, Virginia and New York.

How and why was the Constitution ratified?

States in which ratification was easily achieved:

Of the first five states to ratify, Delaware (7 December 1787), New Jersey (18 December 1787) and Georgia (2 January 1787) did so unanimously. Pennsylvania (12 December 1787) approved by a comfortable majority (46-23) and Connecticut (9 January 1788) by an overwhelming one (128-40). Thus, the Federalist cause built up an early momentum.

Why did the Constitution take longer to ratify elsewhere?

In Massachusetts there was a long and spirited contest. The stance of revolutionary stalwarts Samuel Adams and John Hancock was vital. Both had Anti-Federalist leanings. Federalist pressure was put on both men when the Massachusetts Convention met in January 1788. Pro-Constitution demonstrations by Boston artisans persuaded Adams to support the Constitution. Hancock changed sides when Federalists suggested that he might become vice president if the Constitution were ratified. Eventually, moderate Anti-Federalists were won over by a Federalist pledge to consider adding a Bill of Rights to the Constitution. Thus, in February 1788 the Federalists triumphed by 187 votes to 168.

Maryland (63-11) voted in favour of the Constitution in April 1788, and South Carolina (149-73) fell into line in May. In June, New Hampshire became the ninth state to ratify. Remote and non-commercial, the state had been initially strongly Anti-Federalist. When its people elected their convention, they instructed it not to ratify. When it met over the winter, it followed instructions. But rather than reject the Constitution, it adjourned until June without taking a final decision. That gave the Federalists an opportunity. Raising the issue in town meetings, they put pressure on delegates to change their minds. The New Hampshire Convention finally ratified on an afternoon when Federalists had got a number of their opponents drunk enough at lunch to miss the session. Technically, the Constitution could now go into force. However, without Virginia and New York it could hardly succeed.

In Virginia, the opposing forces were evenly balanced. Patrick Henry’s eloquent attacks on the Constitution, ably seconded by Richard Henry Lee’s Letters from a Federal Farmer, had a profound effect. However, Washington’s support for the Constitution and Madison’s reasoned advocacy, along with his promise to work for a Bill of Rights, was crucial. On 26 June 1788 the Virginia Convention ratified by 89 votes to 79. In essence, in Virginia, the division was between the commercial tidewater counties (Federalist) and the less well-developed regions (Anti-Federalist).

When the New York Convention met, Alexander Hamilton thought that four-sevenths of the people of the state were against the Constitution. He, Madison and John Jay, using the joint pseudonym Publius, wrote a series of 85 articles for the New York press, urging the adoption of the Constitution. These essays, subsequently published as The Federalist Papers, came to be regarded as a classic of American political thought. However, it appears that they did not have a significant influence on contemporary opinion. More important in softening the stubbornness of the New York Anti-Federalists was Virginia’s decision to ratify, and the fear, cultivated by Hamilton, that New York City would secede if the state rejected the Constitution. On 26 July 1788, New York’s Convention approved ratification by 30 votes to 27.

Although North Carolina (November 1789) and Rhode Island (May 1790) still stood aloof (both states wanted significant alterations, and Rhode Island wanted a referendum on the issue), the new Constitution could now begin to function in the states which had ratified it. As its last act, the Confederation Congress ordered national elections for January 1789. Only about ¼ of adult white males voted for the state ratifying conventions. Federalist success was the result of several factors: better organisation, big names, newspapers and Anti-Federalist divisions. The Bill of Rights concession was vital.

Did the Founding Fathers ‘ride to the rescue of the American Revolution’?

In the late nineteenth century, historian John Fiske called the years from 1781 to 1787 the ‘Critical Period’. He depicted the Articles of Confederation as a weak government, unable to deal with a host of political, social and economic problems. Fiske claimed that the USA was close to disintegration until the Founding Fathers rode to the rescue, drafting a more effective Constitution. For much of the nineteenth century, the Constitution was seen as the fitting end of the revolution. Most nineteenth-century historians believed that the revolution had been a struggle to secure American liberty: the Constitution was seen as liberty’s greatest protection. However, twentieth-century historians like Charles Beard, Merrill Jensen and Jackson Turner Main had a different view.

Beard, Jensen and Main saw the years from 1781 to 1787 as years of achievement, not failure. Rather than defenders of the revolution, they claimed that the Founding Fathers were upper-class conservatives, conspiring to protect their own economic interests. Thus, by the mid-twentieth century, the Constitution was depicted as a reactionary document: the product not so much of democracy but of devious men who feared it.

It is now generally accepted that the 1780s were not a period of unrelieved gloom. Nor is it fair to blame all the troubles of the period on the weakness of the Articles of Confederation. In some respects, the Confederation acquitted itself well (for example, successfully regulating western settlement). The Articles aimed to prevent the central government from infringing on the rights of states. Arguably, there was nothing wrong with the USA remaining a loose collection of independent states. Nevertheless, the authority of Congress steadily diminished after 1783. With peace, the states no longer felt the necessity of cooperating with Congress. Thus, the once-respected institution became increasingly weak. By 1785, American finances were in disarray, and the USA was treated with contempt by Britain and Spain.

American nationalists wanted a stronger central government. The result – the Constitution – has survived the test of time. As the Founding Fathers. Over the past 60 years, historians have put the Founding Fathers back on their pedestal. Stanley Elkins and Eric McKitrick consider them to be the ‘Young Men of the Revolution’, driven not by self-interest but by youthful energy and the frustrations they had known as Congressmen, diplomats and army officers. John Roche sees them as modern politicians who understood the need for reform and who carefully calculated the best strategy for achieving it. Esmond Wright stresses that the Founding Fathers were patriots, ‘men with principles as well as pocketbooks’. If they represented property, they spoke for many constituents, for most Americans were property owners. They sought to create a strong government not only, and perhaps not mainly, to curb democracy, but also to preserve the Union and the gains of the revolution.
While the critical period may have been less critical than its critics implied, the Articles of Confederation certainly deserve some criticism. The Founding Fathers may not have been ‘demi-gods’, but they did produce an extraordinary document which ensured that the ‘great experiment’ in republicanism would endure at the national as well as the state level. In that sense, they came to the rescue of the revolution.