Transcription
Welcome to the seventh lecture of Summer 2012, um, from Confederation to Constitution. And today's lecture is a short lecture. However, it's critical to understanding how we went from the Articles of Confederation, which we talked about in last lecture, this sort of weak, uh, central government where essentially there are 13 sovereign nations uniting for the purpose of, uh, waging war, uh, enacting foreign policy, how we go from that to the national government that we have today.
And the Constitutional Convention in 1787, um, and during this period, we're going to talk about what caused America and the founders to move from those weak Articles of Confederation ultimately to the Constitution. And the first thing I want to emphasize some points, and what I really want to hit, hit at, send home to you guys, is at this point in history, this kind of very fragile, experimental nature of what happened after the revolution. Remember, Americans were talking about this kind of American exceptionalism, and one of the reasons Americans felt they were exceptional, in a sense, is that they were looking to create, and more importantly, sustain a Republican government, this representative Republican form of government.
And what stood out to Americans during this period as the foremost example of a Republican government is Cromwell's government in England, uh, after the English Civil War. And again, this is not a positive image, this is a negative image because that Republic ultimately failed as Cromwell, uh, took more and more power for himself and became tyrannical himself. And ultimately, William and Mary were invited to the throne, excuse me, after Charles came to the throne, then William and Mary are invited to the throne with the Glorious Revolution in 1688. So, in Americans' minds, the thought of a republic was that of a failure in Cromwell's England.
Also, when republics existed in history before England, they'd always been in limited territorial areas, right? Small republics. I talked about this during last lecture. So Americans didn't want a strong national government, they didn't want a large republic. And that's, uh, one of the reasons that the states retained so much power after the revolution, right? They felt a republic could only succeed in small territorial areas where people essentially wanted the same thing, had held the same beliefs, same ideologies, same politics, where people were homogeneous.
Now, in addition to emphasize this fragile nature of the new Republic, there was an expectation in the seats of power in Europe that this American experiment in republicanism would not work. Europe believed that it would devolve and descend into constant regional and interstate conflicts, right, between the states. George III, in fact, anticipated Washington would become a Cromwell, that he would usurp power, not give up power after the Revolutionary War was fought. But Washington, and thank goodness, he was the leader at the time who probably could have taken power, he held so much respect, but Washington relinquished his powers and he became the archetypal Republican citizen.
Even at Gettysburg, in his famous address, Lincoln invoked the experimental nature of the new government, this kind of ongoing experiment, right? So I just want to emphasize that this is an experiment. In addition to that emphasis, I want to, uh, review a couple points about the, uh, powers of the Articles of Confederation going forward, right? We said that they could regulate foreign affairs, right, this Congress, and negotiate treaties and alliances. They had the sole power to wage war under the Articles of Confederation and negotiate peace. They did also have the power to establish a post office, which I didn't mention last time, and they have the power to coin money.
But significantly, um, that power to coin money wasn't that great of a power because each per, each state could coin their own money, right? The, the national government here, the Articles of Confederation, did not prohibit each state from coining money. So, just some reminders about what powers were enumerated in the Articles of Confederation before we start talking about how we move from the Articles to the Constitution.
All right, so just like we talked about leading up to the Revolutionary War, we're going to talk about perceptions. And the way we get to the drafting of the Constitution is by looking at two different, mutually supported perceptions, okay? Perceptions are key. There were two different perceptions working toward the rejection of the Articles of Confederation and these new state constitutions, full of republicanism ideology, and eventually, these two groups come together to adopt the Constitution. And that first group is what we can call the young nationalists.
In the 1960s, a pair of historians looked at the leadership that propelled Americans toward the Constitutional Convention, and they're looking at Alexander Hamilton and James Madison. All the men participating in creating this constitution were young, with the exception of Ben Franklin, who is extremely old and sick, and George Washington. They were men who had come of age politically during this dispute with Britain. They came of age writing pamphlets, reading pamphlets, and arguing against Royal Authority. They had given service in the Continental Army and in the Continental Congress, or they served as diplomats. And they're men of this kind of continental vision. They, they see that they were fighting for a nation, they're fighting for independence of a nation, not independence of an individual colony. Thus, the title young nationalists, right? Fighting for a nation. And that is significant because that's what drives them toward what they feel to be saving the nation as they move towards adopting a new Constitution.
By 1787, they felt that the nation is facing this kind of compelling crisis, and for two main reasons they feel this way. First, the young nationalists felt the national government was bankrupt, and they weren't wrong. The national government was in financial trouble. It was a government that could not meet the payments on its national debt. Remember, I said they could not impose taxes on the colonies, excuse me, the states, they could only request money from the states. By 1787, when the Constitutional Convention met, the national government under the Articles of Confederation was roughly $52 million in debt. Congress couldn't even pay the interest, interest on the debt. They couldn't even pay the interest on the $12 million owed to the Europeans. Another $40 million was owed to Americans that funded the war. And to be able to borrow more money, you have to be able to pay the interest on the debts you hold. And the only place to borrow is Europe. This was extremely embarrassing to those who fought for the nation.
So, first compelling crisis, the national government's bankrupt. Second compelling crisis, diplomatic problems. Congress can't enforce treaties because they don't have any power over the states. There's, there's no respect for this new US government in Europe. Therefore, the United States can't negotiate effectively with European powers. There's problems with Spain over access and usage of the Mississippi. There's still these lingering problems with Britain, trade issues, and you still have British troops on United States soil, as well as other issues. So, there's this huge set of problems to disrupt the nation. These young nationalists start talking about this Balkanization of America, splitting into different pieces, and each piece having its own idea, its own agenda, its own wants, its own needs.
Now, in 1781, this national government and these young nationalists try to work out a program to modify the government. And their objective is to give the Articles the power to tax. And they want to do this through what's known as an impost amendment. They want to levy a 5% tax on all goods coming into the US, right? 5% tax on all imports. And what they're trying to do is to pay off this national debt and bills. But remember, one of the weaknesses of the Articles of Confederation was that any amendment or significant change to it could only be modified by a unanimous vote. All 13 states had to agree. So, when it came time to modify the articles for this impost amendment, all 13 states had to agree to it. Only 12 of 13 approved the amendment. There's one holdout, Rhode Island. Rhode Island voted no to the impost amendment. The amendment was resubmitted, but it failed again by one vote. And the young nationalists try over and over again from 1781 to 1783 to pass this revenue act. But by 1783, most of them are term-limited out of Congress. The war, of course, with Britain was over, and the army had begun to disband. The army had been a huge supporter of the nationalists. So now there's kind of this less sense of urgency. The impet, the impetus to move forward fades, and congressional power disintegrates, and the Articles of Confederation become kind of a joke. Congress has trouble gaining a quorum. They don't get enough people to meet in order to do anything. You have to have a quorum to vote. Congress moves around a lot, from Princeton to Philadelphia to New York City.
By the mid-1780s, these young nationalists are desperate, and they begin to unify with another dissatisfied group. This second group that, along with the young nationalists, will change the Constitution or create a constitution, I should say, or what we'll call property-conscious conservatives. These property-conscious conservatives are extremely dissatisfied with the state constitutions that were enacted in 1775, 1776. These are people who have wealth and who are used to being in a position of power and authority because of that wealth. And most dissatisfaction in society is with the state legislator because they affect the most people. State legislatures are where the real power is. The well-off, well-born, and wealthy for sometime make up this group of property-conscious conservatives, and they're dissatisfied with the laws that the state legislators are passing.
Two things in particular they're dissatisfied with, and as I say this, remember private property was sacred, okay? So they're dissatisfied with what are known as debtor stay laws. Debtor stay laws. These debtor stay laws allow debtors more time to pay off their debts, thus debtor stay. They prevented foreclosures on farmers, prevented foreclosures on shopkeepers. So the people that own these debts, these property-conscious conservatives aren't very happy that these legislatures are passing laws where now they can't collect their money and they can't foreclose on people who don't pay their bills. Obviously, these laws are popular among the masses, but not among this powerful group.
Now, the state legislatures are also passing paper money laws. Farmers and every new state demanded that the state legislatures print money. And the idea is, the more money you print, the more inflation there is, right? Prices will go up. And farmers like this because with inflation, there would be increased farm prices. In addition, more money in circulation makes it easier to pay off debts because the dollar is worth less, right? If you take out a loan for $500 and then there's a lot of inflation, you still owe the same $500, but there's a lot more money in circulation, so you're getting more money, so it's easier to pay off that $500. These property-conscious conservatives hate paper money loans because they're the ones that made the loans, so they're the ones more likely to be paid back, and now what are cheap dollars, dollars that aren't worth as much because of inflation. By 1785, 7, 1986, seven states were issuing paper money, and there's a lot of pressure in the other six to print money.
Now, beyond debt stay laws and paper money laws, state legislators were setting aside judicial decisions, especially decisions concerning foreclosures. Someone's going to be foreclosed upon, and this happened in the Great too, okay? Somebody's going to be foreclosed upon. People went to court, asked the judges to set aside the foreclosures, and the judges responded. So these property-conscious conservatives want a return to property rights, a return to this locked ideology. They reject republicanism and lean more towards liberalism, is M, right? We talked about those two ideologies last lecture. They place a limit on government to protect property rights. They fear this kind of anarchy and mob rule, and they conclude that the state legislators lack the wisdom and the restraint necessary to preserve liberty. And they're particularly upset by the quote-unquote new men in politics. New men. This term implies the people who come into office holding positions during the revolution, but their families had not been represented before, these kind of people of ordinary means.
In a survey of the northern states at the time of the revolution and in the mid-1780s, we'll, we'll see the change. In 1776, 177% of Northern assemblymen were farmers or artisans, okay? These are people who are usually not elected to legislative positions. Only the elite had been in society. But by 1785, with these new democratic state legislatures and this republicanism ideology, by 1785, 62% of assemblymen were farmers or artisans. That meant that 62% of legislatures, excuse me, of assemblymen in the legislatures were worth less than $2,000. So they were a small farmer or they owned a little shop. These new men, these were the men that were voting for debt or stay laws and paper money laws.
Now, uh, the average people have power in the state legislatures, right? As, as Gordon Wood talks about, the, the rhetoric of the revolution had a huge impact on society, right? This is the second half of Wood's book, right? The first half, Americans fight the revolution. Second half, what did the revolution mean? What is the impact of the revolution? The revolution, right, essentially fought for the right of the people, for equality. This is the rhetoric of the revolution. The old men, the old elites, hate electioneering. They hate factionalism, catering and pandering to voters. They hate vote swapping. It used to be that you never campaigned. Somebody went out and campaigned for you. To campaign was to degrade yourself. But politics was changing. It was becoming more modern, and these new men were out there campaigning, making promises, pandering, trading votes. So these old elites, these old men in politics, they begin to see the system as being weighed down by these new men. As James Otis once famously put it, stir the pot and the scum will rise. And that's what a lot of these old elites, these property-conscious conservatives felt the revolution did. The revolution stirred the pot. This rhetoric of equality stirred the pot, and what happened is their perception is the scum rose to the top, these new men in politics.
So they want state constitutions to be revised to keep these new men out, or to restructure the government in each state in a way to, in, limit their influence. And within each state, these conservatives start trying to amend the state constitutions. These are the idealistic documents that they want to change. And they come up with ideas drawn on the past. They want a balanced government, as opposed to the legislator having most of the power and the state constitutions being legislature-dominated. They want a more balanced government. They want an executive with more power. They want a governor with the power sufficient to stop debt or stay and paper money laws. They want to revise the Constitution so the governor has a veto. Also, they want to give the governor full appointing power. They want the governor to be elected independently by the people rather than by the state legislature. They want the governor to have a longer term so he can act as a restraint on the legislature to eliminate what they considered unwise legislation. They want new property qualifications for holding office, and they want these qualifications in both houses of government.
There's a movement in Massachusetts to adopt a new state constitution in 1780 to create a senate to protect property, and this senate would not be based on the people. They want longer terms, fewer elections, and a strong Bill of Rights protecting property. Some even advocate judicial review. John Adams, in fact, was a vocal proponent of judicial review. In, in the process of judicial review, remember, judges are able to strike down laws passed by the legislature. In fact, state courts between 1780 and 1787 are beginning to declare state laws unconstitutional under the state constitutions, not very often, but sometimes. In some cases, state judges order property to be returned to Tories, these British loyalists. During the war, their property was confiscated during the war, and some of the state judges felt that their property legally needed to be returned. States don't want to return the property, so they end up passing laws directing the judges to dismiss the cases. The, the crucial thing about judicial review here is that is that there was a discussion of judicial review between 1780 and 1787. There's this kind of growing discussion to use judges to restrain the legislature, right? Conservatives are now looking for the judiciary for restraint. Clearly, they're interested in creating a modern US notion of checks and balances. Conservatives want some means, any means, of checking the authority of the lower house, these legislatures dominated by new men.
So, property-conscious conservatives are the other group that wants to change the constitutions. In Massachusetts, Maryland, New Hampshire, New York, they're successful in changing state constitutions. And by the mid-1780s, these property-conscious conservatives are beginning to join forces with the young nationalists. They're the ones that provide organization and the financing in order to create a constitutional convention. They want to rework the system of government, so the Constitution is a product of both of their thinking. Both groups get their way at the convention.
Now, it's important to note that even taken together, right, these two groups combined, they are still a minority of the population, and their opponents speak for small farmers and artisans. There's one thing, one event in particular that gave these two groups the impetus to move forward, and that's Shays' Rebellion. Shays' Rebellion. This rebellion starts in the late summer, early fall 1786, and extends into early 1787. Small farmers in Western Massachusetts demand legislative action on the paper money issue. They demand this action to prevent foreclosures. Now, Massachusetts had a government where property was represented. Remember, these property-conscious conservatives, as I had just noted, were successful in changing the state constitution in Massachusetts to protect property. So these people involved in Shays' Rebellion that were demanding to prevent foreclosures couldn't sway the state legislature. These protests were met by new taxes and a uniform condemnation by the legislature. So the small farmers took up arms. 2,000 small farmers march and take over local government. They threaten the courts and stop foreclosures, and they terrify the property-conscious conservatives, right? This is the anarchy that they so feared, the rise of the mob.
Now, these Shaysites, these farmers, they're put down by force via the state militia. These Shaysites are driven off. However, in the next election, their supporters win control of the assembly in Massachusetts, right? These Western farmers had a lot of support in Massachusetts, and the legislature responded with debtor relief legislation. And this terrified the property-conscious conservatives. Out of this terror grows the movement to reform states and strengthen the Articles of Confederation, and you get a National Convention which is authorized by Congress in February of 1787 with the sole purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation.
I am going to stop there. Next lecture, we will talk about the Constitution. Remember to make sure you're completing your quizzes. Remember the Wood paper is due at the end of this week. If you have any questions, please post them on the discussion board or email me. Thank you.