Today we revere the Bill of Rights, the first 10 amendments to the Constitution. The BOR is the cornerstone of our rights as Americans.Yet these first additions to our parchment were birthed in political controversy.. This book tells that story.
Professor Berkin is professor of history at Baruch College. She has written a book on the Constitutional Convention which I shall read now. She writes narrative history in a clear and focused manner. I hope her history passes muster from fellow historians.
The majority of the men who crafted our Constitution did not believe a bill of rights was necessary because they did not envision the new national government has having enough power to warrant citizen protection against governmental overreach. James Madison, the so-called Father of the Constitution did not favor a bill of rights. It turns out he and they were wrong.
As the Constitution moved to state ratification in September of 1787, supporters of the new document came to be called Federalists. Opponents were called Anti-Federalists.
Anti-Federalists fought against the Constitution being ratified. Once it was ratified, they desired a second constitutional convention to correct what they believed were deficiencies in the document. Basically the Anti-Federalists believed in state sovereignty which came to be known as states-rights, with little power left to the new national government. Federalists like Madison and George Washington believed, correctly no doubt, that a second convention would destroy the constitution that was hammered out thru much compromised during those hot months in the summer of 1787 in Philadelphia. Federalists desired a strong national government to ameliorate the problems in the country produced by the inert Articles of Confederation. They wanted a national government with the power to tax. Anti-Federalists tended to be happy with the Articles.
Despite the Constitution springing into action, Madison feared that the new document would remain under continuing attack and was therefore vulnerable. Though he initially didn't think a BOR was necessary, he decided to propose one in order to head the Anti-Federalists at the pass. His thinking was that a BOR would separate the leader Anti-Federalists from the rank and file Anti-Federalists and cool the call for a second convention. It turned out he was correct. So how much of Madison's action was conviction that a BOR was a good thing for the new country, and how much was political to protect the Constitution from dismemberment? No way to know for sure.
Madison tried to get the convention at the very end of its existence to consider a bill of rights, but he was rebuffed. P. 5
Federalists who did not want to consider amendments took the position that getting the new government into operation took precedence; amendments could be dealt with later. Madison got the amendment wagon rolling anyway and after long and contentious debate 12 amendments were passed and rectified with the Senate. Only 10 became law. P. 61
The author says that Madison and Hamilton parted ways over Hamilton's economic proposals. P. 131
"What, then, separated Federalist from Antifederalist? The most fundamental difference was this: supporters of a new constitution believed a strong national government would best serve the country; defenders of a continued league of friendship believed the people would be best served as citizens of their sovereign states. Localism thus clashed with nationalist---and the compromise devised by the Philadelphia convention satisfied no one fully."
"The delegates to the Philadelphia convention called that concept federalism. It was born out of a realistic assessment of what the voters would tolerate and what the sovereign states might be willing to accept: a federal system, granting certain explicit powers to the central government, leaving other powers and responsibilities to the existing state governments, and authorizing some powers to be shared by both. At the convention, Alexander Hamilton declared it unworkable---and eight decades later , the Civil War almost proved him right." P. 133-34
Madison disarmed the Anti-federalists who wanted to eviscerate the powers of the national government by proposing the amendments which came to be called the Bill of Rights. It was a political move to save the new Constitution. P. 135
The essence of what I take from this book is that the Constitution was a product of enormous compromise. The future Bill of Rights was an afterthought and indeed, thought unnecessary by most Federalists. By the end of September the delegates to the Constitutional Convention were ready to go home. Even though the new document was ratified and the new government commenced its business, Madison correctly perceived that the national government was still vulnerable to Anti-Federalist attempt to shrink its powers. He introduced and pushed thru what became the Bill of Rights in order to protect the Constitution from attack by a possible second convention. Madison culled through numerous state suggested amendments and whittled it down to 12. Some Anti-Federalists wanted the Congress to consider all state sponsored amendments.We should all be grateful that Madison prevailed as only 12 were passed.
No comments:
Post a Comment