The struggle for national definition

In The united states, I briefly described the events involved in the American colonies taking the startling position of declaring themselves independent of their king and homeland, with the intention of creating their own nation.

In the Line in the Sand, that declaration forced a dramatic Revolutionary War, and victory, freeing the American colonies from Great Britain, but beginning the arduous task of defining this new nation.

In 1776, Congress had begun work on the creation of a "document" to serve as a guideline for the hoped-for independent confederation of states. While the war continued, the Articles of Confederation was drafted, debated, and modified extensively. By November 17, 1777, Congress was able to agree on a form of government which stood some chance of being approved by the separate States. The Articles of Confederation were then submitted to the several States, and on July 9, 1778, were finally approved by a sufficient number to become operative.

Even during the ratification period, it was clear to all that the Articles of Confederation were inadequate as the foundation of a new nation. It left many problems unresolved as to how the diverse and independent states might successfully work together. Congress had to rely on the states for any funding, had no ability to "unify" the states' differences, and really didn't have the ability to speak for the new nation. George Washington described it as, "little more than the shadow without the substance,"

Two states, Virginia and Maryland, sent delegates to create the Mount Vernon commission, in March 1785 at Washington's home, to settle issues about their shared Potomac River and Chesapeake Bay. Those commissioners went on to recommend to their states that all states should take combined action to resolve similar trade differences between all the states. Nine states responded by appointing delegates, and In September 1786, the Annapolis convention convened, but only 5 state delegations attended, and it became clear that no trade issues could be resolved. However, the Annapolis delegates unanimously submitted to their respective States a report in which they suggested that a convention of representatives from all the States meet at Philadelphia on the second Monday in May (May 13) 1787 to examine the defects in the existing system of government and formulate "a plan for supplying such defects as may be discovered."

Although several states responded quickly to that suggestion, it became clear that if the Articles of Confederation were to be revised, the call for participation had to come from Congress. In February of 1787, Congress resolved: "It is expedient that on the second Monday in May next a Convention of delegates who shall have been appointed by the several States be held at Philadelphia for the sole and express purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation."

The Philadelphia convention - the revision that became a rewrite

The convention opened on May 5th, 1787, beginning with poor attendance, and only obtained a quorum- delegates of seven states - on May 25. Over the next 4 months, though, the 55 delegates who included most of the outstanding leaders of the new nation, effected a marathon of determined, patient, and rational work.

Delegate viewpoints ranged widely on many issues of the new government. The convention had been given the specific task of revising the Articles of Confederation, but some delegates arrived under instruction to do whatever needed to build a solid governmental framework. The Articles had many serious shortcomings. During the period surrounding the Declaration of Independence, state governments had gradually formed, writing their own varying constitutions. This occurred without voting by the public, or even through special conventions.

The Declaration itself put these delegates to a demanding task. It had declared a nation of the people, and had emphasized that, if unacceptable, that government could be altered or abolished by those people. That document, and the whole idea of democratic self-government, had been enthusiastically endorsed, and fought for, by the people. Expectations on these delegates were enormous, and their personal reputations were on the line in their home states. Several delegates quit the convention due to disagreement, and seven delegates did not approve the eventual document.

During discussions it became clear that the Articles of Confederation could not be simply revised to achieve what was needed, so they faced the daunting task of starting from scratch to define, in effect, the makeup of a whole new nation of states; states which varied dramatically from each other.

They began with a set of resolutions known as the Virginia Plan, written primarily by James Madison. These resolutions defined a national government with separate legislative, executive, and judicial branches. The issues debated within that context, however, were far too numerous and complex for this article.

How strong should this "federal" government be?
How would it relate and compare with the state governments?
What would its components be?
How would the individual states be fairly represented within this government?
What would the legislature look like?
How often would they meet?
Who would pay the delegates?
Should the legislature be composed of "normal" citizens, or would wealthy men represent each state, resulting in a sort of aristocratic government much as in England?
If the legislature was based on population, would there be regular census takings, and who would count as citizens?

The questions surrounding slaves were complex. If slaves were counted as citizens, it would give slave states excessive representation and encourage them to increase their slave population. If slaves were not counted as "persons", it would be an egregious violation of the "all men are created equal" charge. The compromise solution was to count "other persons" (slaves) as three-fifths of persons. Undesirable from an "equality" viewpoint, but perhaps as good as possible given the circumstances of the day.

It is important for us to remember that, throughout these deliberations, the question of getting the states, and indeed their citizens, to agree to ratify the final document, was an overriding concern. If this was to be a government of the people, the approval of the people, in each state, was essential. Suppose the people of some states rejected the result. Could there be a united states with some independent states sitting outside... or even geographically within? Guidelines for new states to be added were considered.

When the final document was made public on September 17, 1787, its Preamble rang out like a loud and clear bell:

We, the People of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union...

... and so began the most democratic document in history.

The ratification process the delegates defined for approval by the states demanded more citizen involvement than the states typically required. Rather than choose easier approval, they wanted a clear public mandate for the new Constitution. Debate ranged across the nation, and ratification was always in doubt. Nine months later, New Hampshire became the decisive ninth state to ratify. Virginia followed soon, and key New York, in a tight vote, approved in July. The government began operation with only 11 states "united". North Carolina would join in 1789 and Rhodes Island in 1790.

The story of our Constitution does not end there, and may never end. During the ratification debates, demand built for more specific guarantees of liberties. On September 25, 1789, the First Congress of the United States proposed to the state legislatures 12 amendments to the Constitution that met arguments most frequently advanced against it. The first two amendments were not ratified, but the next 10 were, and have become known as the Bill of Rights. Seventeen more amendments have been made, from the 11th in 1795 to the 27th in 1992.

The American Constitution can be criticized, but in historical context, its effect was unmatched, and still so remains. To paraphrase Winston Churchill's praise of British fighter pilots in WWII, to instead describe the debt we owe our nation's founders:

Never in the field of human liberty was so much owed by so many to so few.