Demise of A Dream: Two Hundred Years of American Constitution (An Old and Rare Book)

Email

Whatsapp

Facebook

Pinterest

Twitter

Copy link

R. Hofstadter, tracing the history of American Constitution in his book The American Political Tradition, made the following comment: "Throughout the secret discussions at the Constitutional Convention it was clear that this distrust of man was first and foremost a distrust of the common man and democratic rule." There cannot be a more correct evalution of the men who adopted the Constitution which is still now described by the American politicians, and many historians too, as the embodiment of 'the American mission and a 'document of universal significance.

The leaders of the first revolution were in a hurry to push through the Constitution as they, being practical men of affairs, were conscious of the simmering discontent among the common men of America who felt the promise of 'life, liberty and pursuit of happiness' was now nothing more than a utopia. To leash these "men-actual men possessing all the turbulent passions belonging to that animal", a strong central government was considered absolutely essential and this urgency acted behind the secret gathering which adopted the Constitution in 1787.

The independent country's first Constitution the Articles of Confederation-was adopted in 1777. Besides, the states constituting the United States of America had their own constitutions. Many human rights, proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence, were included in these constitutions. As for example, Virginia Constitution included the bill of rights. The Articles of Confederation was a bourgeois constitution providing for high property qualification etc. Yet it bore the imprint of the democratic spirit of the masses.

But the men behind the 1787 Constitution increasingly came out against the first Constitution. Under cover of preaching the necessity of the strengthening of the Union, they in fact were out to restrain the burgeoning forces of democracy. They believed the people "have ever been and ever will be unfit to retain the exercise of power in their own hands." According to Prof. V.L. Parrington, the fight for abolition of the Articles of Confederation and the substitution of a new instrument "is a classic example of the relation of economics to politics; of the struggle between the great property and small property for control of the state".

George Washington, James Madison, Alexander Hamilton were among those 55 men who, in 1787, met behind closed doors to deliberate upon the new Constitution, and adopted it. The only idea dominating the thinking of the Founding Fathers was to set up a barrier to the exercise of the will of the 'rabble' which might lead the country to 'anarchy". They feared that independence would be followed by social and political upheaval. To them, most threatening of all was the rise of new men or popular leaders who would strive to pursue egalitarian policies. The little democratic elements of the earlier constitution were not considered suitable by the men gathered in the Constitutional Convention who found an oligarchic republic with a strong centre most suitable for the new nation. All the leaders who adopted the Constitution were propertied men, none were small farmers or workers, and their common desire was to have a solid centralized state machine that would operate in the interests of the rich, a sort of state machine that would be able to curb anyone who dared to lift his hand against the property of the few. Alexander Hamilton, the spokesman of a strong centralized government, demanded such a government "to curb the follies of democracy" since the turbulent and changing masses "seldom judge or determine right". George Washington, who presided over the Constitutional Convention, said its labours were not intended "to please the people".

The Founding Fathers were probably conscious of the limitations of their labour and launched a campaign to provide theoretical substantiation of the work done which was led by James Madison, himself a rich plantation-owner, and Alexander Hamilton. While Madison laboured his best to justify the in- violability of the institution of private property, Hamilton spoke in defence of a strong central government a strong President and a bi-cameral Congress. "I am not much attached to the majesty of the multitude. The people! The people is a great beast!" Hamilton also regarded the division of humanity into the propertied minority and the property less majority inviolable. So he asked to give "to the first class a distinct, permanent share in the government". He thought nothing but "a permanent body can check the imprudence of democracy. Their turbulent and uncontrollable disposition requires checks."