-
Ailes: A Voice for the Silent Majority
May 13, 2013 | 8 comments
-
Tangles of Pathologies
April 12, 2013 | 35 comments
-
An Enduring Partnership
March 25, 2013 | 5 comments
-
Spies, Traitors, Agents of Influence, and Useful Idiots
January 31, 2013 | 35 comments
-
On Knowing When to Shut Up
December 19, 2012 | 7 comments
Buy the Book
Creating the Best Government in the World
Pauline Maier has written the first coherent account of our Constitution’s ratification debates.
(Page 2 of 2)
They refused to be told that the issues of the day were beyond their competence. They put their minds to complicated problems, tried to reconcile the ideals of the Revolution with the needs of the nation, and considered the impact of contemporary decisions not just on their own lives but for the future — for “millions yet unborn,” as one person after another put it. They were engaged, often remarkably well informed given the primitive communications of the day, and… honored majority rule, even when it went against them.
Maier is scrupulously fair to the Anti-Federalists, and refuses to call them that. Because of objections from men like William Findley, who called it “a name of reproach,” she “preferred to type out ‘critics of the Constitution’ and its synonyms over and over.” Moreover, she believes, the Federalists enjoy an advantage routinely denied to their opponents by historians:
Let me be clear on this: I have no doubt that we need to understand the Federalists’ understanding of the Constitution… they provided the intellectual foundations of American government. For that we tend to believe everything they said.… The Federalists were intelligent and articulate, the kind of people with whom historians tend to identify, and so to trust.… What they said seems wise and persuasive, which is to say true.
From a certain perspective they won, and winners generally tell the stories.
And they had the means to help shape those stories:
[T]he Federalists also controlled the documents on which historians depend. They owned most of the newspapers. They sometimes paid those who took notes on the convention debates or subsidized the publication of their transcripts. In some places… Federalists forcibly blocked the circulation of literature critical of the Constitution.
However, she writes:
They were not trying to distort history. They were struggling to win a very tough fight on behalf of what they understood as the nation’s welfare in a world where the rules of the political game were different from those of today.
And in fact, Maier believes, casting the fight for ratification in terms of a struggle between proponents and opponents of strong central government, as conventional history would have it, is misleading. Nearly everyone, she maintains, was for a federal government stronger than the one provided for by the Articles of Confederation. But the reluctance of the Federalists to allow amendments before ratification aroused opposition among those who saw in it a threat to the rights won during the Revolution.
In the end, the Federalists won. But Maier believes their opponents also won a good deal more than historians acknowledge or perhaps realize. Congress met many of their concerns by expanding the House of Representatives, approving the Judiciary Act of 1789, modifying the plan to levy direct taxes except in times of war, and proposing a series of amendments.
“Without their determined opposition,” Maier writes,
the first ten amendments would not have become a part of the Constitution for later generations to transform into a powerful instrument for the defense of American freedom. “We the People” of 1787 and 1788 inaugurated a dialogue between power and liberty that has continued, reminding us regularly of the principles of 1776 upon which the United States was founded and that has given us direction and national identity. Their example might well be their greatest gift to posterity.
In her concluding section, Maier gives the last word to William Findley, who in 1796 recorded how his thinking had changed.
In the end, like so many onetime critics of the Constitution, William Findley “embraced the government as my own and my children’s inheritance.” He knew that the Constitution had defectS.… In his mature judgment, the Constitution was, however, not just good or maybe good enough.
Findley came to believe that it was “capable of being well administered, and on the whole, the best government in the world.”
About the Author
John R. Coyne, Jr. a former White House speech-writer, is co-author with Linda Bridges of Strictly Right: William F. Buckley Jr. and the American Conservative Movement (Wiley).
Letter to the Editor View all comments (28) | Leave a comment
More Articles by John R. Coyne, Jr.
More Articles From Buy the Book
http://spectator.org/archives/2011/03/30/creating-the-best-government-i
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- The Vast and the Tiny
- The (Real) Great Divide
- Of Wizards and Weapons
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
H/T to National Review Online
ADVERTISEMENT
Intelligent Design| 3.30.11 @ 6:15AM
"Ratification" is very informative with many details of the process which I didn't know. But it is frequently redundant and gets a bit tiresome. Overall, it was worth it.
Alan Brooks| 3.30.11 @ 6:12PM
"Creating the Best Government in the World"
No, America has the best economy in the world. What good is freedom without wealth? one is totally free in some areas of sub- Saharan Africa-- to STARVE.
MOS was 71331| 3.30.11 @ 7:22PM
At least our constitution also leaves us free to succeed and prosper. Is there any form of government which guarantees wealth to all and can deliver on that guarantee, no matter what the circumstances are?
What exactly is your point?
Alan Brooks| 3.30.11 @ 8:57PM
IMO there is too much flag waving, bunting, nationalistic smarm which is counterproductive.
potkas7| 3.30.11 @ 6:47AM
It's interesting how the arguments of the Anti-Federalists - distrust of an unaccountable judiciary and concern about giving the central government unlimited power to impose taxes, to name but two - have found new currency in the Tea Party movement. I guess the Constitution really is a living document since the debate over how the republic should be operated and how people are best governed is unending.
Stormzeye| 3.30.11 @ 9:06AM
The thing that allows the Constitution to be a "living" document is the fact that it is silent on so many things. It provides a framework rather than a blueprint for government. This allows for interpretation. Unfortunately, given the nature of politics and self-interest, there will always be those who try to interpret the Constitution so as to advance their own agenda rather than to look only to safeguarding the liberty of the people from the tyranny of a strong central government.
John Daniel| 3.30.11 @ 7:32AM
Patrick Henry got it. "You are not to inquire how your trade may be increased, nor how you are to become a great and powerful people, but how your liberties can be secured; for liberty ought to be the direct end of your Government." June 5, 1788.
Alan Brooks| 3.30.11 @ 6:14PM
Free to freeze and starve in the dark, even.
MOS was 71331| 3.30.11 @ 7:23PM
I ask again (see above), what is your point?
Alan Brooks| 3.30.11 @ 9:01PM
See above: IMO there is too much flag waving, bunting, nationalistic smarm which is counterproductive.
I'm only really echoing libertarians who say we have the freedom to fail. And they don't know how right, in that case, they are. In war we can fail easily; the constitution can be abused in matters of life and death; war and peace.
We can fail en masse by miscalculation, as we did in 'Nam.
Ammo Guy| 3.30.11 @ 10:17AM
More than half a century after I first became aware of this document, I continue to stand in awe of its brilliance. And, while it has been 2000 years since man last laid eyes on perfection, the Constitution is about as good as it gets. I can still recall the train wreck of Boy Clinton’s impeachment and marvel at the founders’ understanding of the precise moment when the lawyers must stand aside and politicians must take over – for better or worse, no matter the outcome. I shudder to think of what would transpire today if we had to do it again with the “intellectuals” currently in the public arena – probably something like the 500+ page monstrosity the EU tried to foist on its citizens several years ago. We should count our blessings of liberty daily and continue to strive for a more perfect union.
Impeach Don't Wait| 3.30.11 @ 8:09PM
'And, while it has been 2000 years since man last laid eyes on perfection,..."
I like the way you said that.
Alan Brooks| 3.30.11 @ 10:55PM
I'm not opposed to conservatism per se, but you confuse cornball, rube-thinking, with actually CONSERVING something.
Vern Crisler | 3.30.11 @ 10:40AM
Does Maier mention that the Bill of Rights is only applicable to the federal government?
Seek| 3.30.11 @ 12:12PM
Does this mean that state and local governments can violate liberties at will? What would be the point of having a country in the first place?
Alan Brooks| 3.30.11 @ 6:17PM
They are just flag waving, Seek; it's merely Rightist feel-good. Put enough bunting up and they feel good about the future.
MOS was 71331| 3.30.11 @ 7:25PM
Brooks seems to contribute nothing to the discussion. He just makes the same statement over and over.
Vern Crisler | 3.30.11 @ 7:39PM
Umm, the States still had established religions long after the Bill of Rights was ratified. The Bill of Rights was a limitation on the FEDERAL Government. The States -- who already had their own constitutions -- had demanded it before agreeing to sign on to the new federal constitution.
da monk| 3.30.11 @ 10:37PM
It has applied to the states since the 14th amendment
Vern Crisler | 3.31.11 @ 1:25AM
No, it has only applied to the States since the late 1940s, when judicial activism got its start. The application of the Bill of Rights to the State is an usurpation by the Supreme Court, and for that, they deserve to be thrown in jail.
cicero| 3.30.11 @ 11:19AM
Vern, the 14th amendment applied the Bill of Rights to the states.
Vern Crisler | 3.30.11 @ 7:36PM
The 14th Amendment did NOT apply the Bill of Rights to the States.
cicero| 3.30.11 @ 11:19AM
Vern, the 14th amendment applied the Bill of Rights to the states.
lol wut?| 3.30.11 @ 11:44AM
wow the new amazon popup is very inconvenient, especially if you want to buy the kindle version, need to go back to the old way y'all had it.
Sheila| 3.30.11 @ 12:53PM
Mr. Coyne, may I recommend to you "The Anti-Federalist Papers and the Constitutional Convention Debates," which does exactly what you say Ms . Maier's book does - and which was published years earlier, in 1986. It has an excellent and intriguing introduction by Ralph Ketchum, and lets those who lost the debate (but were right about what would happen) then speak in their own words.
fwb| 3.30.11 @ 3:51PM
One problem with this book coming out now is that fully 1/3 of the Documentary History is not yet done. So I guess someone has/had a crystal ball with which to see those unpublished volumes.
"living" document:
Total BS. The Constitution lives ONLY because it can be amended. There is no other life through interpretation except in the minds of those who would cheat and steal from others.
The Constitution is silent on so many points because those points are not pertinent to the federal government. The silence occurs because the Constitution is a whitelist as opposed to a blacklist. A blacklist is/can never be complete for something more always arises. A whitelist is complete at any given moment but can be added to (amended) as needed. A whitelist is limited in scope. A blacklist is unlimited. In order for the Constitution to be what some wish, a blacklist we would necessarily have to denude the planet of all materials for printing so as to have sufficient media to include everything prohibited.
Anyone who has tried to limit spam emails knows a white list is manageable while a blacklist grows too large to manage almsot immediately. The Framers understood that they created a tabula rasa, a blank slate, with absolutlely no inherent powers. In the document they wrote, they left no room for implication of any kind IF one is well read enough to see the whitelist. If it is not granted it is withheld. That is a whitelist.
Andrew| 4.1.11 @ 12:09AM
I liked the book, because of the source material it exposed. I did not like the way it was organized, state by state. To me that meant "and then they argued about the same thing in MA as they did in PA". Yes that's oversimplifying, this is a blog comment. I think it would have been more useful in several ways to organize the book by issues (thus more clearly demonstrating its timeliness).
What were the big issues, and why? What was big everywhere, what was only big regionally?
Who said what on what issues would have struck me as more interesting than who said what about what on a state by state basis.
Creative Recreation | 8.10.11 @ 11:14PM
is good