-Caveat Lector-
A Constitution That Disrespects Its People
I have been suggesting that at the very heart of
our political institutions, at the very core of
our way of doing politics is fear and distrust
of the political activity of common people. As
we explore more deeply the vision of the Framers
and the historical context of their work, we
shall find that the Framers repeatedly expressed
what they felt was the need to check and balance
the political expression of people who were not
like themselves, who were not involved in the
market economy, who did not own much property,
and who were not very rich. John Adams believed
that "Men in general...who are wholly destitute
of property, are also too little acquainted with
public affairs to form a right judgment, and too
dependent on other men to have a will of their
own."10 In fact, when the Framers used the term
"the people" they had in mind the "middling"
property owning people or, generally speaking,
the middle class. It is the political expression
of this middle class which they also distrusted
but which they felt they had to permit if
property owners were to be free from government
interference. The Framers were thus willing to
permit the limited participation (through the
House of Representatives - remember that the
Constitution did not permit the direct election
of the Senate and we still do not elect the
president directly) of white males who met state
property qualifications.
The political expression of classes below the
middle class property owners, women, or people
of color, indentured servants, or people with no
property - in short, the "people in the first
instance" as Charles Pinckney called them, or
the majority, was simply "nonsense" and "wrong."
Political expression by these groups was not
permitted and as we shall note, the Constitution
was purposefully made to be anti-majoritarian in
several ways. Representatives were to be of and
among "the better people" who would have a
material stake in society, who would be less
given to some common impulse of passion, and who
would be able to tell us what our real needs and
interests are. Amendments have broadened the
definition of "the people" to include most of
those who were excluded in 1787. But the
Constitution's very design, its processes, and
its structure still gives life to the eighteenth
century elitist belief that rich and powerful
people ought to rule. The Constitution still
disrespects the political wisdom of most people,
of workers, particularly people of color, of
women, and of those who happen to be poor.
A System of Injustice
The vision of the Framers, even for Franklin and
Jefferson who were less fearful of the politics
of common people than most, was that of a strong
centralized state, a nation whose commerce and
trade stretched around the world. In a word, the
vision was one of empire where property owners
would govern themselves. It would be a nation in
which ambitious industrious (white Anglo-Saxon)
men would be finally free from the Crown and
from the Church to do with their property as
they pleased and as their talents permitted. It
would be a nation organized around private power
where there would be freedom to acquire wealth
and the function of the state and of its
executive would be to protect these freedoms and
opportunities, defined as natural rights.
Meanwhile, it was perceived that the only real
threat, to paraphrase Madison, to the rights of
the few virtuous citizens and therefore to the
"common good," would come from the overbearing
majority, the people without property. For it is
the less virtuous and less industrious people,
the people in debt for example, who would seek
to redistribute property and invade the rights
of others.
There is a tension, then, between the elite who
privately own productive resources and the
multitudes who are made dependent, who, as Karl
Marx noted, must sell their lives in order to
live. Within this relationship of power, the
Constitution protects the power of the more
powerful. It does this because the Framers
believed that it was the right of a few "better"
people to own and control much of the earth's
resources. And it does this because the Framers
believed that the lives of women, people of
color, and the poor ought to be defined in terms
of the desires and interests of the rich.
Resistance to this tyranny, from the Whiskey
Rebellion of 1794 to the revolutionary leaders
of today who are genuinely committed to
directing meager resources to the majority poor
in the Third World, are and have been brutally
repressed because the national army created by
the Constitution is directed by that document to
preserve these relationships of disparity. Of
course, relationships of disparity are not
referred to as such by elites. They would prefer
to call them "our rights" and "our freedom."
Thus "our" concepts of rights and of freedom are
interwoven with the Framers' vision of conquest
and empire and privilege.
A "Song Without Knees"
Eric Foner writes that in the minds of the
"founding fathers" was a "view of human nature
as susceptible to corruption, basically
self-interested and dominated by passion rather
than reason. It was because of this natural
`depravity' of human nature that democracy was
inexpedient: a good constitution required a
`mixed' government to check the passions of the
people, as well as representing their
interests." We should add that the "founding
fathers" were less worried about checking their
own passions. They did not see themselves as
depraved. Only common people were depraved.11
We are the legacy of that warped view. Thomas
Ferguson and Joel Rogers point out that none of
the major initiatives of the Reagan
administration (tax cuts for the rich, budget
cuts in social programs, and increased
militarism, particularly increased funding for
nuclear weapons and the sponsorship of terrorist
armies such as the Contras) followed popular
initiatives. Instead they were initiated by
business elites.12 Ours is a system, as Noam
Chomsky regularly reminds us, of elite
decisionmaking with occasional ratification by
an irrelevant public. When one studies the views
of the Framers, one discovers that it was never
intended to be otherwise. The larger problem,
however, is that we have become used to playing
a subservient role. We live, politically, on our
knees.
Martin Luther King, Jr. at times stated that
perhaps one of the greatest accomplishments of
the Civil Rights movement was that blacks, who
had been brought to America in "darkness and
chains," had learned to "straighten up their
bent backs." "We won our self-respect," he said.
An inner sense of dignity had been acquired.
Stephen Oates, a King biographer, writes with
regard to one particular woman in the movement:
For her and the others who
participated, the movement of 1965
became the central event of their
lives, a time of self-liberation when
they stood and marched to glory with
Martin Luther King. Yes, they were
surprised at themselves, proud of the
strength they had displayed in
confronting the state of Alabama,
happy indeed, as Marie Foster said, to
be "a new Negro in a new South - a
Negro who is no longer afraid." And
that perhaps was King's greatest gift
to his long-suffering people in Dixie:
he taught them how to confront those
who oppressed them.......13
In so many ways all of us live in chains and
darkness. Writes Starhawk, "Women, working-class
people, people of color, and people without
formal education, are conditioned to think of
their opinions and feelings as valueless. They
are taught to listen to an inner voice that
murmurs, `You shouldn't say that. You only think
that because something is wrong with you.
Everybody else knows more about things than you
do.' "14 We have yet to learn to straighten our
backs. We wish to believe that confronting those
who disrespect us is somehow bad or itself
disrespectful. But we need to learn that proper
confrontation is a source of dignity and a
necessary first step to politics. Otherwise
politics becomes draining. For without a sense
of confidence and purpose we play by the rules
the Framers set down, rules that were designed
for the "depraved."
In Nicaragua, there is a song called "Song
Without Knees." It tells of life under the
dictator Somoza and how the revolution was a
process in which people learned to get off their
knees, learned to stand up and express
themselves as healthy and creative people. Here
in the United States we too need to learn a
"Song Without Knees" so that we can create space
for a politics without knees, a politics which
is rooted not in the fear and distrust of common
people, but one which departs fundamentally from
the myths and illusions of the founding period
which hold many of us hostage in a state of
comfort, denial, and unfortunately,
irresponsibility.
The "Founding Fathers"
These 35 Framers were considered the
most active. Unless otherwise
indicated, the following information
was drawn from chapters 5 and 7 of
Charles Beard, An Economic
Interpretation of the Constitution of
the United States (New York: The
Macmillan Company, 1948); Chapter 8 of
Clinton Rossiter, The Grand Convention
(New York: The Macmillan Company,
1966); and Page Smith, The
Constitution (New York: William Morrow
and Company, 1978).
Abraham Baldwin of Georgia
He was a wealthy lawyer who possessed a few
thousand dollars worth of public securities. He
wanted the Senate to be composed of men of
property so that they could check the House of
Representatives which was apt to be composed of
men of less substantial wealth and therefore
closer to the common people.
Gunning Bedford of Delaware
He was the son of a "substantial land owner," a
lawyer, and was eventually elected governor of
his state. He was in favor of a more democratic
Constitution than the one we have now which he
felt checked the "Representatives of the People"
more than was necessary.
William Blount of North Carolina
He was born into a substantial planting family
and was very deeply involved in land
speculation. He enslaved human beings.
Pierce Bulter of South Carolina
He enslaved thirty-one human beings. He also was
a stockholder and director of the first United
States bank. He felt that no congressional
representatives should be directly elected by
the people, that the Senate ought to represent
property, and that slavery ought to be
protected. He was responsible for the
Constitution's fugitive slave law and he also
"warmly urged the justice and necessity of
regarding wealth in the apportionment of
representation."
George Clymer of Pennsylvania
He possessed a large fortune, held public
securities, and helped create the Bank of
Pennsylvania. He believed that "a representative
of the people is appointed to think for and not
with his constituents." And later as a member of
Congress "he showed a total disregard to the
opinions of his constituents when opposed to the
matured decisions of his own mind."
John Dickinson of Delaware
He was a member of one of the established landed
families of the South, a lawyer, and he married
into one of the wealthiest commercial families
in Philadelphia. He wanted a monarchy and
refused to sign the Declaration of Independence.
He seems to have constantly worried about the
"dangerous influence of those multitudes without
property & without principle."
Oliver Ellsworth of Connecticut
He was the most successful lawyer Connecticut
had yet known with a fortune "quite uncommonly
large." He held public securities and invested
in the Hartford Bank and the Hartford Broadcloth
Mill. He was also regarded, perhaps more than
any other member at the Convention, as someone
who feared "levelling democracy." He argued that
voting be limited to those who paid taxes.
Regarding slavery he said, "As slaves multiply
so fast...it is cheaper to raise than import
them....[But] let us not intermeddle. As
population increases; poor laborers will be so
plenty as to render slaves useless."
Benjamin Franklin of Pennsylvania
He was a printer, scientist, author, diplomat
and land speculator who had accumulated a
"considerable" fortune. More than anyone at the
convention, he was sympathetic to meaningful
self-government. Because of this he was known to
have serious doubts about the Constitution but
signed it anyway. Charles L. Mee, Jr., in The
Genius of the People, states, "Franklin disliked
the document, thinking it cheated democracy."
Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts
He was a Harvard graduate and a merchant with a
considerable estate. In reference to the
political unrest at the time of the Convention,
he complained that "The evils we experience flow
from the excess of democracy." He did not want
any members of the new national government to be
elected by popular vote, having been taught the
"danger of the levelling spirit." Although he
was quite active at the Convention, Gerry had
numerous objections to the final draft and he
refused to sign it.
Nathaniel Gorham of Massachusetts
He was a successful merchant who was involved in
land speculation on a large scale. He expressed
what was then the general attitude about the one
chamber that was popularly elected (given the
restricted franchise) when he said, "All agree
that a check on the legislative branch is
necessary." He was sympathetic to monarchy and
during the Convention secretly wrote to European
royalty in hope of involving someone with royal
blood in governing the United States.
Alexander Hamilton of New York
He was an eminent lawyer who perhaps more than
any other delegate was responsible for
organizing the Convention, and later, as
Secretary of the Treasury under President
Washington, for implementing the Constitution
and institutionalizing its relation to the
private economy. He greatly admired monarchy and
time and again emphasized the need to check "the
amazing violence and turbulence of the
democratic spirit." Hamilton believed that
government ought to be an instrument in the
hands of creditors, financiers, and bankers.
When he later sought to create a national bank,
he said that it would help unite "the interest
and credit of the rich individuals with those of
the state."15 His statement at the Convention
concerning the relationship between government,
the rich, and the poor deserves to be quoted at
length because it represents what was then a
very common attitude among elites:
All communities divide themselves into
the few and the many. The first are
the rich and well born, the other the
mass of the people. The voice of the
people has been said to be the voice
of God; and however generally this
maxim has been quoted and believed, it
is not true in fact. The people are
turbulent and changing; they seldom
judge or determine right. Give
therefore to the first class a
distinct, permanent share in the
government. They will check the
unsteadiness of the Second....Can a
democratic assembly who annually
revolve in the mass of the people, be
supposed steadily to pursue the public
good? Nothing but a permanent body can
check the imprudence of
democracy....It is admitted that you
cannot have a good executive upon a
democratic plan.16
William Samuel Johnson of Connecticut
He was a wealthy and successful lawyer and
graduate of Yale who refused to help in the War
of Independence because he could not
"conscientiously" take up arms against England.
Clinton Rossiter describes him as "the nearest
thing to an aristocrat in mind and manner that
Connecticut had managed to produce in its 150
years." He was one of the few northerners at the
Convention who simply did not worry about
slavery or the slave trade.
Rufus King of Massachusetts
He was born into and married into wealthy
families, was a Harvard graduate, and had
extensive mercantile and other business
interests. He was also a large holder of
government securities and was later director of
the first United States bank. King argued in
favor of a strong unimpeachable executive and
urged that the judiciary be permitted to check
the political tendencies of common people whom
he felt would use legislatures to attack the
privilege of property owners. He was responsible
for the clause which prevented any state from
passing any law "impairing the obligation of
contracts." This clause greatly helped the rich,
as we shall see.
John Langdon of New Hampshire
He was "uniformly prosperous" and a "man of
great wealth and pressing commercial interests,"
the "leading merchant" from Portsmouth. He was a
large creditor of the new government (the third
largest holder of public securities among all
the Framers) and a strong supporter of a
national bank.
James Madison of Virginia
He was a descendant of one of the old landed
families, studied law at Princeton, and at one
time enslaved 116 human beings. He has been
called the "most active of all the moving
spirits of the new government." For this reason
he is acknowledged as the "Father" of the
Constitution. He greatly feared that the
majority of people with little or no property
would take away the property of the few who held
quite a bit. He very much liked the Constitution
because he believed that it would check the
majority from establishing "paper money," the
"abolition of debts," an "equal division of
property," or other "wicked projects." And in
general it would prevent the majority from
"discovering their own strength" and from acting
"in union with each other." His defense of the
Constitution in Federalist No. 10, found in the
Appendix, is the most concise and clearest
example of the political thought that undergirds
our political institutions. Because his role in
the design of the Constitution was so central, I
shall quote him frequently; his political
thought weighs heavily upon us today.
Luther Martin of Maryland
He was a successful lawyer and graduate of
Princeton, but his fortune was never large. He
enslaved "only" six human beings. He was in
sympathy with poor debtors generally and argued
that the government ought to protect the debtor
against the "wealthy creditor and the moneyed
man" in times of crisis. He refused to sign the
Constitution, given its protection of creditors,
and fought hard against its ratification.
George Mason of Virginia
He was a speculator in land, owning some 75,000
acres. He also owned $50,000 worth of other
personal property and he enslaved 300 human
beings. Like many large slaveowners, he feared a
strong national government and a standing army.
He was a strong proponent of the right of
individuals to own property without government
interference. Given the lack of a Bill of Rights
and the strong central power sanctioned by the
Constitution, Mason feared that the new system
would result in "monarchy or a tyrannical
aristocracy"; he refused to sign it. Mason is a
classic example of a Framer for whom "rights"
meant the protection of private power and
privilege. Mason did not object to the
anti-democratic features of the Constitution,
rather he objected to the fact that a national
government might someday interfere with his
individual freedom as a property owner, that is,
his "rights."
John Francis Mercer of Maryland
He enslaved six human beings. He also held a
moderate amount of public securities. He stated
that "the people cannot know and judge of the
characters of candidates. The worst possible
choice will be made." He left the Convention
early, and strongly opposed the ratification of
the Constitution.
Gouverneur Morris of Pennsylvania
He was a lawyer who was born into the landed
aristocracy of New York. A rich man, he helped
establish the Bank of North America. He was "an
aristocrat to the core," once stating that
"there never was, nor ever will be a civilized
Society without an Aristocracy." He believed
that common people were incapable of
self-government and that poor people would sell
their votes. He argued, "Give the votes to
people who have no property, and they will sell
them to the rich who will be able to buy them."
Voting should be restricted to property owners.
He shaped the Constitution more than most men at
the Convention (he made 173 speeches, more than
anyone) and was responsible for the style in
which it was written.
William Patterson of New Jersey
He was a lawyer, graduate of Princeton, and
attorney general of New Jersey who was born in
Ireland. He resisted the creation of a strong
central government and left the Convention
early.
Charles Pinckney of South Carolina
A successful lawyer, and a considerable
landowner, he enslaved fifty-two human beings.
Taking the side of the creditor against the
debtor, he had been among the Congressmen who
were critical of the Articles of Confederation
and sought the creation of a centralized
national government. At twenty-nine, he was the
youngest member of the Convention. He believed
that members of government ought to "be
possessed of competent property to make them
independent & respectable." He wrote to Madison
before the Constitution was ratified, "Are you
not...abundantly impressed that the theoretical
nonsense of an election of Congress by the
people in the first instance is clearly and
practically wrong, that it will in the end be
the means of bringing our councils into
contempt?"
General Charles C. Pinckney of South Carolina
A successful lawyer who worked for the merchants
of Charlestown, he was also a large landowner in
Charleston, and he enslaved human beings. He
felt that the Senate ought to represent the
"wealth of the country," that members of the
government ought to hold property, and according
to Clinton, believed in the need "for stiff
measures to restrain the urges of arrant
democracy."
Edmund Randolph of Virginia
He was a successful lawyer who owned 7,000 acres
of land. He enslaved nearly 200 human beings. He
held considerable public securities. He believed
that the problems confronting the United States
at the time were due to the "turbulence and
follies of democracy." The new Constitution,
therefore, ought to check popular will. He
thought that the best way of doing this would be
to create a independent Senate composed of
relatively few rich men.
George Read of Delaware
A successful lawyer who "lived in the style of
the colonial gentry," enslaved human beings, and
was a signer of the Declaration of Independence.
He was in favor of doing away with states and
wanted the President to be elected for life and
have absolute veto power.
John Rutledge of South Carolina
He was a very successful lawyer who also owned
five plantations. He enslaved twenty-six human
beings. He said that the defects of democracy
have been found "arbitrary, severe, and
destructive." We see in Rutledge a clear
expression of the notion that the general
welfare is, in essence, economic development and
accumulation. With regard to the issue of
objections to slavery, he stated: "Religion &
humanity had nothing to do with this question.
Interest alone is the governing principle with
Nations. The true question at present is whether
the Southern states shall or shall not be
parties to the Union. If the Northern States
consult their interests they will not oppose the
increase of Slaves which will increase the
commodities of which they will become the
carriers."
Roger Herman of Connecticut
He was a shoemaker, storekeeper, farmer who rose
from poverty to affluence and he also owned
public securities. A signer of the Declaration
and drafter of the Articles of Confederation,
Sherman was not terribly enthusiastic about a
strong national government. But nor was he
enthusiastic about popular sovereignty. He said,
"The people immediately should have as little to
do as may be about the government. They want
information and are constantly liable to be
misled."
Caleb Strong of Massachusetts
He was a lawyer and Harvard graduate. He owned
public securities and seems to have accumulated
considerable wealth. He was in favor of more
frequent congressional elections than what the
Constitution eventually mandated. He left the
Convention early and went home.
George Washington of Virginia
As we have noted, by several accounts Washington
was the richest man in the United States and he
enslaved hundreds of human beings. He made only
one speech at the Convention and seems to have
had no particular theory of government. He
distrusted popular democratic tendencies and
viewed criticism of the government, as Beard
notes, as "akin to sedition." He also feared the
growth of urban populations, stating that "The
tumultuous populace of large cities are ever to
be dreaded. Their indiscriminate violence
prostates for the time all public authority."
Hugh Williamson of North Carolina
Educated as a medical doctor, he inherited a
great trading operation. He also speculated in
land and owned public securities. He wrote
Madison following the Convention that he thought
an "efficient federal government" would in the
end contribute to the increase in value of his
land. He sided with creditors against debtors in
his state. At the Convention he was generally in
favor of shifting power away from the states
toward the national level.
James Wilson of Pennsylvania
Born in Scotland, he was a successful lawyer
whose clients were primarily "merchants and men
of affairs." He was one of the directors of the
Bank of North America. He was involved in the
corrupt Georgia Land Company and held shares "to
the amount of at least one million acres." He
later became a member of the Supreme Court. He
was apprehensive, as were most of his
colleagues, about the opportunity that common
people would have to express themselves
politically though legislatures. But he also
believed that the judiciary would be a
sufficient check on popular will. He, therefore,
was in favor of more popular participation in
the selection of government officials (popular
election of the President and the Senate) than
the Constitution permitted.
------------------------------------------------
Notes
Chapter 1
1. Frederick Nietzsche, The Will to Power (ed.)
Walter Kaufman and (tr.) Walter Kaufman and R.J.
Hollingdale (New York: Random House, 1967), 4.
2. Charles A. Beard, An Economic Interpretation
of the Constitution of the United States (New
York: The Macmillian Company, 1948), 144, 145.
3. Howard Zinn, A Framers History of the United
States (New York: Harper & Row, 1980), 67.
4. Fawn M. Brodie, Thomas Jefferson (New York:
W.W. Norton & Co., 1974).
5. This statement was made in a lecture at the
Evergreen State College, Olympia, Washington, in
October 1987.
6. Eric Foner, Tom Paine and Revolutionary
America (New York: Oxford University Press,
1976), 190. Here I am using the term Framers
broadly. It refers not only to those who wrote
the Constitution but to others such as John
Adams, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Rush, Robert
Morris and others who played leading roles in
shaping our political and economic institutions.
7. Newsweek , May 25, 1987, 47.
8. Time, July 6, 1987, 35.
9. John F. Kasson, Civilizing the Machine (New
York: Penguin Books, 1976), 31,32.
10. Foner, 123.
11. Foner, 90.
12. Thomas Ferguson and Joel Rogers, Right Turn:
The Decline of the Democrats and the Future of
American Politics (New York: Hill and Wang,
1986).
13. Stephen B. Oates, Let the Trumpet Sound (New
York: Harper & Row, 1982), 361.
14. Starhawk, Dreaming the Dark (Boston: Beacon
Press, 1982), 101.
15. Wilfred E. Binkley, American Political
Parties (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1943), 40.
16. Max Farrand, ed., The Records of the Federal
Convention of 1787 (New Haven: Yale University
Press, 1966), 288.
------------------------------------------------
<A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/">www.ctrl.org</A>
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic
screeds are unwelcomed. Substance—not soap-boxing—please! These are
sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'—with its many half-truths, mis-
directions and outright frauds—is used politically by different groups with
major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought.
That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and
always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no
credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply.
Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html
<A HREF="http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html">Archives of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]</A>
http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
<A HREF="http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/">ctrl</A>
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Om
