A Brilliant Solution: Inventing the American Constitution and The Glorious Cause, Essay Example

The unique history of the United States is in many respects reflected in its political structure as a country. Running such a vast territory is not the easiest task to fulfill, and one of the key success factors appears in creating an efficient and strong government able to control without oppression all the states constituting the nation. Since the first years of the United States existence as an independent country, leading politicians and prominent public figures have been attempting to devise an optimal governing body that would satisfy the ideological and practical requirements of the nation and contribute to its prosperity. Depending on the circumstances, the approach to forming the governing principles varied reflecting the urgent needs of the country, and thereupon corresponding legislative acts were drawn and disputed over, with the most successful of them anchoring in the history of the nation as the stepping stones to creating a powerful state.

However long ago the first legislative attempts were taken, it appears instructive and productive to turn the attention of the public to past events in order to assess the present day situation from the standpoint of those who undertook those attempts with the view of securing a future for their country. An endeavor to do so has led a City University of New York historian, Carol Berkin, to creating an account of one of the most crucial period in establishing the United States as a federal constitutional republic. In the introduction to her book, A brilliant solution: Inventing the American Constitution, Berkin (2003) explains that the incentive for writing it consists in two crises hitting America in early 2000s: the stress of much-disputed 2000 presidential election and the terrorist attack of September 11, 2001. As a historian, Berkin (2003) felt the immediate need “to put current events in a historical perspective” — and at the same time she felt that need in many people around her (p. 4). The issues of the greatest interest to the historian are described by her as:

“What would the founding fathers think of these events? … What political crises had the founding fathers faces, and how did they react to them? What problems did they hope to solve when they met and drafted a new constitution in the summer of 1787? What role did they envision for the president and for other branches of the government in times of calm or crisis? What dangers did they think lay ahead for their nation?” (Berkin 2003, p. 4)

The concern in those issues and the community of interests obviously explain the general style of the book and its ultimate direction at public at large: in a two-hundred-pages long brisk and vivid narrative the author manages to create a captivating story, which is not an easy objective to reach when chronicling a political convention. There is a detail that helps to take a different view on the events, as the political assembly under consideration appears to be nothing of the boring meetings which are not worth mentioning: it is the Constitutional Convention to revise the Articles of Confederation — that is, the creation of the United States Constitution.

Drawing a parallel between the modern political situation and that of the end of the eighteenth century, Berkin (2003) describes a situation of a deep crisis and post-war depression which the United States underwent after the American Revolutionary War. However optimistic the spirits of the nation may have been after the adoption of the Declaration of Independence, the war had a devastating effect on the country, which was overcome by anarchy due to the unleashed and unfulfilled expectations after the Revolution.

A disturbing picture of a fragile newcomer on the international arena emerges when it is remembered that by 1787 the United States treasury was empty and the nation’s honor was at stake as neither the internal, nor the external debts could be paid, and consequently no new loans were allowed for the discredited country. There was no army to defend the settlers who would have otherwise explored the West, and there was no marine force to protect the trading ships. Bonds with the British Empire had been destroyed at all levels, which immediately had an adverse effect on American economy.

In addition to economic depression, the social and political environment left much to be desired. As a consequence of changes brought about by revolutionary policy, the “tyranny of centralized power” had to be once and for ever forgotten (Berkin 2003, p. 17). Consequently, the political influence and authority were actually concentrated in the hands of thirteen separate state governments, each of which obviously strove for the state independence, thus turning the war for independence into thirteen individual wars. The interstate relations were none of the favorable: the bigger and more powerful states tried to take advantage of their less prosperous neighbors, enacting new trade barriers and taxes and in fact substituting the so much detested British oppression for that of their own. In addition to the necessity to pay at every state border, the demand for different currency in every state in no way contributed to commercial welfare. Nevertheless, despite the obviousness of the failure, any attempt for consolidation was met with suspicion and disavowal.

In such situation, only powerful and decisive actions taken by the federal government could have brought about improvement. However, the government itself was, according to the famous quote by a Revolutionary strategist Henry Knox, “a name, a shadow, without power or effect” (as cited in Berkin 2003, p. 11). Constant failures and set-backs destroyed the congressmen’s faith into the success of their undertaking, the Congress spirit was crashed, there was hardly any attendance at Congress meetings and that often led to impossibility of reaching the quorum. But the biggest problem of all was that in time that called for uniting against the depression, the Congress would not think in terms of the whole continent. That could be explained by large if one recalls the circumstances under which the Continental Congress itself was created: memories of corrupt royal judges and governors of the colonial times were too fresh to initiate an introduction of separate executive and judiciary branches, as well as an upper chamber in the legislature. That would be too much reminding of the colonial past — and still, it was too much an obstacle for successful and harmonious development of the nation.

There they were, the helpless apathetic Congress, the state governments arguing among each other about further disintegrations — and the dissatisfied citizens, whose despair grew to a point when they decided to take matter into their hands (illustrated by a wave of farmers’ rebellions starting from 1777). However optimistic expectations the Declaration of Independence and the Revolutionary War might have raised, even before the states started to collapse (as a logical consequence of the Articles of Confederation policy) some minds possessed an insight into what might threaten the nation in the future. Already in 1780, a young immigrant from the West Indies, Alexander Hamilton in a letter to his friend warned against state individualization and insisted on creation of a strong government, which would be able to control the separatist spirits of the states, and which would possess power enough to manage the matters of commerce, military and the navy, thus gaining international respect (Berkin 2003). After 1785 Hamilton’s idea of a strong uniting power for a dynamically developing nation attracted more public attention and a meeting at Washington’s Mount Vernon estate was held to promote interstate commerce. However important it seemed, attendance by state representatives was negligibly low, consisting mainly of representatives from New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, and Virginia, — but those nationalistically inclined gentlemen did not give up and in a manifesto called their legislatures to summon “… a general meeting, of the States, in a future Convention, for the same, and such other purposes, as the situation of public affairs, may be found to require” (as cited in Berkin 2003 p. 25). This would mean that a Convention could be summoned on any occasion, extending the authorities of the “Commissioners to Remedy Defects of the Federal Government” (Berkin 2003 p. 25), as they called themselves, to spheres much broader than simple recommendations on interstate commerce. At that point, fortune played into the nationalists’ hands: the 1786 farmers’ rebellion finally persuaded the states in the necessity of joint action, and in early January 1787 announcements of intention to participate in the Philadelphia May Convention appeared. And there the new history creation started.

The following chapters of Berkin’s (2003) book are focused on description of the delegate’s individualities and the spirit that predominated among the creators of the Constitution in May 1787 during those decisive times. One by one, as in a motion picture, the heroes of those days enter the scene, and each of them is introduced as a personality and as an ambassador of his state, representing certain interests:

“… in personality and character, the delegates were as varied as any elite group might be. A number were self-sacrificing, honorable to a fault, above reproach in personal and public matters. Others were vain, ambitious, even unscrupulous in their political and private relationships….As Madison’s notes would reveal, the convention had its share of windbags and fiery orators. And as the character sketches made by William Pierce would show, it also had its share of eccentric dressers and dandies, alcoholics and snuff addicts, mediocrities and boors.” (Berkin 2003, p. 50-51)

Taking the delegates from the pedestal of “demigods”, as Jefferson described them in France of that time, Berkin (2003) takes a critical approach to unveiling the masks of certainty and omnipotence from the men who, having arrived at the debate with their own individual vision of the right way to go, actually had to struggle for their state and nation interests, and in a painful agony of dispute produce the compromise decision which would save their country from destruction. By personalizing the delegates and enlivening the debate, the author brings the origins of the Constitution much closer and makes it a much less formal document than it could be viewed by an outside observer. If traditionally the Convention is imagined as a summit of wise men who came there with a clear image of the steps that should be undertaken for a successful solution of the issue at stake, Berkin (2003) dismisses this image by representing the process as an agony of doubt, including even pessimism as for the document’s capacity to forestall tyranny and a great deal of compromise from strongly held principles.

The impression resulting from reading of Berkin’s (2003) work is that of literally delving into the times of Constitution writing. Not by chance is the book entitled Inventing the American Constitution: the whole process of designing and ratifying the act by Founding Fathers is represented as that of invention, research, anxious seeking for the only acceptable solution to the urgent needs of the nation. Careful approach had to be taken when coining that vital state document, for without a due balance between centralized and shared power the threat of going back to monarchy was too grave. As a result, the role of the president’s office was seen more as ceremonial rather than the centre of the nation’s political power, and a careful system of checks and balances was designed to control the branches of power and prevent abuse in any of them. All in all, Inventing the American Constitution is marked by a distinctive flair of its author and descriptiveness of the various and diverse personalities which make it a truly captivating excursion into the times of the Constitution creation.

A different type of narrative can be found in Robert Middelkauff’s The glorious cause: The American Revolution, 1763-1789. As the author himself states, the narrative form was chosen for the reasons that “A narrative … can recapture some of the movement of the years of conflict, movement which saw the cause grow into something considered glorious by a people who came to recognize themselves as set apart from others by Providence.” (Middelkauff 1985, p. vii)

Thus, similarly to Berkin’s (2003) approach, Middelkauff considers narrative style to be the key mode of rendition which allows for seeing history not simply as dry recitation of occurrences set far back in time, but as a coherent story, the events in which had their prerequisites and consequences. Assuming a scholarly approach, Middelkauff demonstrates a deep insight into the philosophic and religious prerequisites of the events, dissecting subjects which range from British political culture to eighteenth-century infantry tactics to public finance to the relationship between the revolutionaries’ Protestant heritage and their conceptions of rights and politics. A professional and dexterous approach makes his writings loaded with facts and details which allow recollecting the events as they were, but unlike Berkin’s (2003) work do not appeal to the readers’ emotional side — which turns the seven-hundred-pages book into more a documentary statement curious for specialized historians than an engrossing reading for public at large.

However different they may be, both accounts of the United States Constitution creation present an undisputable value, as they assume a realistic approach to describing the events of the time when the United States were emerging as a political power. The peculiarities of the time and situation, the necessity for a careful approach to forming country law, the dangers of outweighing one political preference for the benefit of the other (which could ultimately lead either to deconcentrated anarchy or to return to centralized tyranny) as well as the need for creating a powerful body that would govern a new vast territory determined the specific way the American polity was created: in laborious debate, behind closed doors, in an atmosphere of collective anxiety and a realization of own lack of clairvoyance and imperfection in creating something that would fit the indefinite future. However, with wisdom sufficient to include in the Constitution a capacity for change and development.

References

Berkin, C. (2003). A brilliant solution: Inventing the American Constitution. Fort Washington, PA: Harvest Books.

Middlekauff, R. (1985). The glorious cause: The American Revolution, 1763-1789. New York: Oxford University Press.