America Without the Constitution Without

¶ … America Without the Constitution

Without the ratification of the U.S. Constitution the Articles of Confederation would have been the predominant legal structure of the new Republic of the United States. Therefore, there would be no strong central Federalist government, and it is possible the fledgling government would not have secured adequate funding and been unable to withstand the British incursion in the early 1800s, thus preventing the United States from existing as it does today. While it is impossible to know what direction history would take if certain documents were, or were not developed and used, it is reasonable to assume that there would be consequences to a change of the magnitude of the lack of a strong, ratified Constitution and Federal System of government. Without a means to collect national taxes, form a strong national military, create a central banking system, and negotiate fiscal and diplomatic issues with other countries, the power of the United States would wane. In addition, without the fiscal security of robust Federalism, there would be little money to purchase additional lands (e.g. The Louisiana Purchase); acquire Texas (the Mexican-American War); fund railroads and other incentives to encourage the move westward, and indeed finally purchase Alaska (e.g. Seward's "Folly").

Constitutional Mandates: The United States Constitution is the backbone for all legal theory and implementation for the United States and is the final authority on law. It established the framework of the government was adopted on September 17, 1787, and defined the three main branches of government: executive, legislative, and interpretive. It is ironically both the shortest and oldest written constitution still in use today (National Constitution Center, 2009). We must remember, too, that the idea of this constitution -- of removing ties to a monarchy and setting up a separate government "by the people, for the people," was a very radical idea in the 18th century -- and had a background not only in the various documents from the Mayflower Compact to the numerous colonial governmental charters.

There were several political and social events during the 18th century that contributed to the manner in which the United States Constitution was framed. First, it is important to realize that, at the time, the "typical" form of government to which the framers of the Constitution were familiar was a monarchy. The nations of Europe all had long traditions of Kingships, and indeed, the British King exerted a great deal of political and social authority. Since most of the authors of the Constitution were British educated, or had clear ties to Great Britain, the idea of a monarchy did not seem foreign to them.

However, that being said, the idea of a monarchy became even more distasteful to many because of the power that the Crown held over the American Colonies was considered "taxation without representation." This phrase, however famous, was central to the view that a central government could not be strong without being responsive to the idea of representing its citizenry. This, of course, was the idea behind the Federal Government, lead of course by such famous individuals as Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, and - and espoused in such documents as "The Federalist Papers" (Bailyn, 1993).

The view, then, was that to have a secure and strong government, a Federal System must be established that would take precedence in many aspects to those of a local or state government. The idea of a united UNION, made up of different components (States) but still subservient to the goals of the Union, was prominent. There were several reasons the constitutional framers believed this to be necessary. For instance, not every state was equal in terms of resources (both human and natural), nor had developed the same urbanization as others. Each state, it was believed, had something unique to contribute to the Federal System, but that system would not be strong unless it had the backing of all the states. A single state, for example, Maryland, could not hope to fight the British Crown or establish independence, but the 13 Colonial States, mustered under a Federal guideline, could form a strong Union, enact laws to tax, trade, deal in international relations, and establish Federal offices that would help each individual state prosper and grow (Postal Service, Banking Rules, etc.) (Beeman, 2009).

There were many compromises that had to be made to ensure that these documents that framed the Federal System (e.g. The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution) were enacted. Slavery, for example, was debated heavily, but, at the time, was considered an economic necessity by the Southern States so was not put into law at this time. Had the colonies not united, it is likely that the British would've prevailed, and that it would have taken many more years to see American independence from the Crown. We must also remember that, rather than simply the concept of Slavery as a legal contract, the War Between the States (e.g. The Civil War) was essentially fought on the basis of a State's right of succession -- and to uphold the Federal System. The Northern States believing that the Constitution did not allow an individual State to succeed, the Southern States opting for State's rights as opposed to Federal rights (Jordan, 1999).

Anti-Federalist Scenario: In antithesis to the Federal view of the Constitution, the Anti-Federalists were primarily for State's rights, the lower classes, and the uneducated. The opposed a standing Army and a strong centralized government, thinking that each individual State should act as its own entity. They believed that a strong central government risked the rights of the common people. We must remember that the people at the time had never lived under any system but a King. This power structure, centered at the top, continued to frighten most of them. The looked at the past 500 years and saw tyranny under Charles I, and even with the 1688 English Bill of Rights most of the law flowing from top down. Now, the people of the United States were facing a change in government and the northern colonies (by in large) wanted a strong central government in which the power rested. The Anti-Federalists movement, then, believed that unless rights were completely spelled out, there was an innate dispensation towards tyranny (Cornell, 1999).

The United States under this paradigm would not actually be the United States- it would be a loose configuration of a number of States. However, the States, without a central system, would be at the mercy of their own particular population and economic means which would be quite unequal depending on rural vs. urban. In addition, without a strong central government, the new Republic would likely have been defeated by Great Britain in 1812 since there would not have been a standing army. In addition, the Federal system provided an agreed upon currency and exchange rate, the ability to negotiate foreign treaties (and purchases) internationally, and the ability to act like a country rather than a set of Colonies. Finally, the anti-Federalists were opposed to the omission of God in the Constitution, and would allow less separation between Church and State ("Federalists vs. Ant-Federalists,").

Nonetheless, the Anti-Federalists were still very patriotic, very much supporters of the revolution, and although they opposed the Constitution on moral and intellectual grounds, it was out of fear that the new laws were a direct threat to democracy. It was not that they disliked or even distrusted some of the men who were ardently Federalist -- James Madison and Alexander Hamilton, for instance. It was that they believed a future government might stray from the appropriate principles of the revolution. For instance, they saw the lifetime tenure of Supreme Court Justices as proof that the people's vote was already being diminished. Indeed, the debate was really not settled completely until the 20th century, when the Warren Court of the 1950s and 1960s legislated that States must adhere completely to the Bill of Rights. Many see the Civil War as an actual outgrowth over the Federalist debate, specifically issues surrounding a State's right to secede from the Union (Siemers, 2002). At times, however, the idea of the Anti-Federalist faction is oversimplified into an argument over class structure or cities vs. farms. Instead, Anti-Federalism was a political and social philosophical unification of a number of diverse interests that had one major idea in common -- correction against tyranny, be that from Britain or an overzealous Federal system. There were, in fact, three major delineations of the Anti-Federalist movement. The first was a political and philosophical elite version more academic in conception; the second a middle of the road, popular in New York and Pennsylvania with non-urban workers. Finally, there was the plebian version, very popular within the agrarian community. Each of these factions viewed a strong central government as problematic and something to be feared. They were concerned about the power of the judiciary (lifetime appointments for Supreme Court Justices), as well as the Federal system's ability to appoint and promulgate other political rituals and systems (Cornell, 1999, 43-59; 60-89).

Articles of Confederation: The Articles of Confederation were approved in November, 1777 and were the basic format for what would become the Constitution and Bill of Rights for the United States. There were, of course, deficiencies in the document, this was a new experiment and getting the delegates to agree in kind to pass any sort of document was challenging at best. The Articles did allow a semblance of unity, the further impetus to remain at war with the British, and the conclusion that there would be some sort of Federal government. The Articles, however, failed to require individual States to help fund the Federal (National) government, a template for an Executive and National Judicial Branch, or the issuance of paper money and a central banking system. In essence, the largest failure was the Articles' inability to allow a Federal government to regulate commerce, tax, or impose laws upon the States. As a position of power, the large, populated States continued to hold the most influence, and rather than centralized authority, tended to favor whatever application was best for their individual State, as opposed to what might be best for the nation as a (Klos, 2004).

Most scholars see the Articles as a very effective idea, but not an effective governmental template. Since the articles did not allow a national government to function as a government, in that sense it was a failure and required additional buttressing (Bill of Rights, Constitution, etc.). The Articles are more of a backlash against the fear of a centralized and powerful government, but possibly in that fear the framers went too far. Because the individual States had so much authority, many opted to legislate popular items, but not necessarily wise legislation that would contribute to a more cohesive Republic. For instance, some States inflated their own currencies, cancelled debts, ratified or closed trade barriers with other states, and, in violation of the Treaty of Paris, confiscated loyalist property (Isaacs, 2008).

In essence, then, the Articles of Confederation, being documents that were careful not to allow a strong centralized government resulted in too weak a government that was unable to protect and defend individual liberties. While they promoted the essence and spirit of liberty and equality, the loose confederation was not up to the task of ruling under the circumstances. To the west of all the colonies was unexplored and potentially dangerous country, some staffed by British fortifications, much of Europe was not convinced America would last and therefore remained unwilling to develop long-term banking and/or trade relations. The Articles were, though, an important step in the framing of a Constitution, again, remembering that this was a new, untried experiment in government. Without the Articles, and the various factions believing that without a stronger central government, it is unlikely the American experiment would have succeeded (Swaine, 2000).

Importance of the Constitution: There were several political and social events during the 18th century that contributed to the manner in which the United States Constitution was framed. First, it is important to realize that, at the time, the "typical" form of government to which the framers of the Constitution were familiar was a monarchy. The nations of Europe all had long traditions of Kingships, and indeed, the British King exerted a great deal of political and social authority. Since most of the authors of the Constitution were British educated, or had clear ties to Great Britain, the idea of a monarchy did not seem foreign to them. This new document, the Constitution allowed, for the first time, a broader class of electorate and a way to bridge the political and cultural differences between religious, ethnic, and State factions. The debates surrounding the ratification of the Constitution are, in fact, at the heart of the structure of the formation of the United States. In fact, without the debate presented by the ratification, the Bill of Rights would not exist, which forms the basis of modern America (Amar, 2005, 3-22).

However, that being said, the idea of a monarchy became even more distasteful to many because of the power that the Crown held over the American Colonies was considered "taxation without representation." This phrase, however famous, was central to the view that a central government could not be strong without being responsive to the idea of representing its citizenry. This, of course, was the idea behind the Federal Government, lead of course by such famous individuals as Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, and - and espoused in such documents as "The Federalist Papers." The papers were necessary, from a public perspective, to provide a way to debate the issues of the Constitution in a larger vein, and in a manner more inclined to glean support for the Federal System (Coenen, 2006).

The view, then, was that to have a secure and strong government, a Federal System must be established that would take precedence in many aspects to those of a local or state government. The idea of a united UNION, made up of different components (States) but still subservient to the goals of the Union, was prominent. The leaders of the American Revolution were radicals of the time, but not in the sense of correcting the inequities of class or income, nor even to remake in the Lockian sense, the social order. Instead, they were dedicated to mending what they considered to be a broken system (royalist tyranny) and take the lessons of the past, all the way back to the Roman Republic, and remake society on a model that worked for the majority of the governed (Bailyn, 1992, 35-91).

There were several reasons the constitutional framers believed this to be necessary. For instance, not every state was equal in terms of resources (both human and natural), nor had developed the same urbanization as others. Each state, it was believed, had something unique to contribute to the Federal System, but that system would not be strong unless it had the backing of all the states. A single state, for example, Maryland, could not hope to fight the British Crown or establish independence, but the 13 Colonial States, mustered under a Federal guideline, could form a strong Union, enact laws to tax, trade, deal in international relations, and establish Federal offices that would help each individual state prosper and grow (Postal Service, Banking Rules, etc.).

There were many compromises that had to be made to ensure that these documents that framed the Federal System (e.g. The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution) were enacted. Slavery, for example, was debated heavily, but, at the time, was considered an economic necessity by the Southern States so was not put into law at this time. Had the colonies not united, it is likely that the British would've prevailed, and that it would have taken many more years to see American independence from the Crown. We must also remember that, rather than simply the concept of Slavery as a legal contract, the War Between the States (e.g. The Civil War) was essentially fought on the basis of a State's right of succession -- and to uphold the Federal System. The Northern States believing that the Constitution did not allow an individual State to succeed, the Southern States opting for State's rights as opposed to Federal rights.