The Colonists Experience with Governance - Essay Example

Download file to see previous pages The colonists’ experience with governance from the mother country had prepared them well for the creation of a new republic. The presence of a hereditary aristocracy in Great Britain was one of the reasons the colonists wanted a new form of government – a republic, where all powers come from the people. Moreover, there was an inner fear that any government run by mankind would eventually fall into the pattern of power and control over the people. Historically, republics around the world seemed to always fall into the hands of a strong central leader – a dictator or a monarch. Thus, the people became less empowered while the central government became more controlling and powerful. By design, when the Constitution was ratified, the states were empowered. However, over time a gradual drift toward a dominant national government has become evident.
Two distinct political positions began to evolve from the colonists. Most Americans considered citizen “virtue” fundamental to any successful republican government. Because political power no longer rested with the central, all-powerful authority of the king, individuals in a republic needed to sacrifice their self-interest for the public good. The collective good of the people mattered more than the private rights and interests of individuals. Yet, not all Patriots agreed with this viewpoint defining republicanism. Some favored a republic ruled by a group of talented and educated elites. Republicanism for them meant an end to hereditary aristocracy, but not an end to all social hierarchies. These more conservative Republicans feared that the fervor for liberty would overwhelm the stability of the social order. They watched with great concern as the lower class in society – the poor farmers, tenants, and laboring classes in towns and cities seemed to embrace a kind of republicanism with a level playing field. Thus, two groups of people formed different political ideologies.

The first weak national government, the Articles of Confederation, was unable to exercise real authority, although it did successfully deal with the western lands issue. The Confederation’s weaknesses in handling foreign policy, commerce, and the Shays rebellion spurred the movement to alter the Articles. Conservatives, anxious to safeguard their wealth and position, naturally exaggerated the seriousness of the nation’s plight. They were eager to persuade their fellow citizens to amend the Articles of Confederation in favor of a muscular central government. But the poorer states’ rights people played down the talk of anarchy from the Shays rebellion. Many were debtors who feared that a powerful federal government would force them to pay their creditors. Yet, both groups agreed, the Confederation needed some strengthening.
Instead of revising the Articles, the well-off delegates to the Constitutional Convention created a charter for a whole new government. In a series of compromises, the convention produced a plan that provided for a vigorous central government, a strong executive, and protection for property, while still upholding republican principles and states’ rights. The American people were somewhat astonished, so well had the secrets of the convention had been concealed. The public had expected the old Articles of Confederation to be patched up; now it was handed a startling new document in which, many thought, the precious jewel of state sovereignty was swallowed up. One of the hottest debates of American history forthwith erupted. The antifederalists, who opposed the stronger federal government, were arrayed against the federalists, who favored it.
Some of the leaders of the antifederalist camp included prominent revolutionaries like Samuel Adams, Patrick Henry, and Richard Henry Lee. Their followers consisted primarily, though not exclusively, of states’ rights devotees, backcountry dwellers, and one-horse farmers – in general, the poorest classes. Large numbers of antifederalists saw in the Constitution a plot by the upper crust to steal power back from the common folk.

The Federalists had power and influence on their side. They enjoyed the support of such commanding figures as George Washington and Benjamin Franklin. Most of them lived in the settled areas along the seaboard, not in the raw backcountry. Overall, they were wealthier than the antifederalists, more educated, and better organized. They also controlled the press. The Federalists met strong opposition from antifederalists, especially in Virginia and New York, but through effective organization and argument, they succeeded in getting the Constitution ratified. This debate would not go away soon. A few years later, two prominent political figures squared off representing the two diabolically opposed camps of thought. Hamilton represented the federalist's position while Jefferson was the antifederalist.

Within twelve years, the American people had risen and thrown overboard both the British yoke and the Articles of Confederation. Americans had come to regard a central authority, replacing that of George III, as a necessary evil – something to be distrusted, watched, and curbed. The original framers of the Constitution expected Congress to be the dominant branch of government. However, as the republic evolved, many suggest the federal government became too big and laborious. Moreover, the executive branch enveloped more and more power and control over the years, something the original framers of the Constitution feared. ...Download file to see next pages Read More