As the decades have passed and the Constitution has grown more and more tradition-encrusted without losing any of its flexibility, each generation has tried to explain how a people so young and inexperienced, so free-swinging and unruly, could have produced it. At the time of the hundredth anniversary of its signing, the British statesman William E. Gladstone called it “the most wonderful work ever struck off at a given time by the brain of man.” One reason for its durability was the ability of those who drafted it. The founders were remarkable men. Although he later had reason to quarrel with certain aspects of their handiwork, Jefferson, who was on a foreign assignment and did not attend the convention, called them “demigods.” A presumably more impartial French diplomat said that “even in Europe,” he had never seen “an assembly more respectable for the talents, knowledge, disinterestedness, and patriotism.”
Collectively the delegates possessed a rare combination of talents. Most of them had considerable experience in politics, and the many lawyers among them were skilled in logic and debate. Furthermore, the times made them acutely aware of their opportunities.
It was “a time when the greatest lawgivers of antiquity would have wished to live,” an opportunity to “establish the wisest and happiest government that human wisdom can contrive,” John Adams wrote. “We. . . decide for ever the fate of republican government,” James Madison said during the deliberations.
If these remarks overstated the importance of their deliberations, they nonetheless represented the opinion of most of those present. They were boldly optimistic about their country. “We are laying the foundation of a great empire,” Madison predicted. At the same time the delegates recognized the difficulties they faced. The ancient Roman republic was one model, and all knew that it had been overthrown by tyrants and eventually overrun by barbarians. The framers were also familiar with Enlightenment thinkers such as John Locke, Thomas Hobbes, and Montesquieu, and also with the ideas that swirled around the great disputes between Parliament and the Stuart monarchs during the seventeenth century.
James Madison was a key figure at the Great Convention of 1787. He not only influenced the shaping of the Constitution but also kept the most complete record of the proceedings. "Every person,” wrote one delegate, "seems to acknowledge his greatness.”
Fortunately, they were nearly all of one mind on basic questions. That there should be a federal system, with both independent state governments and a national government with limited powers to handle matters of common interest, was accepted by all but one or two of them. Republican government, drawing its authority from the people and remaining responsible to them, was a universal assumption. A measure of democracy followed inevitably from this principle, for even the most aristocratic delegates agreed that ordinary citizens should share in the process of selecting those who were to make and execute the laws.
All agreed that no group within society, no matter how numerous, should have unrestricted authority. They looked on political power much as we today view nuclear energy: a force with tremendous potential value for humankind, but one easily misused and therefore dangerous to unleash. People meant well and had limitless possibilities, the constitution makers believed, but they were selfish by nature and could not be counted on to respect the interests of others. The ordinary people— small farmers, artisans, any taxpayer—should have a say in government in order to be able to protect themselves against those who would exploit their weakness, and the majority must somehow be prevented from plundering the rich, for property must be secure or no government could be stable. Freedom, as Locke had maintained, rested on a right to property. No single state or section must be allowed to predominate, nor should the legislature be supreme over the executive or the courts. Power, in short, must be divided, and the segments must be balanced one against the other.
At the outset the delegates decided to keep the proceedings secret. That way no one was tempted to play to the gallery or seek some personal political advantage at the expense of the common good. Next they agreed to go beyond their instructions to revise the Articles of Confederation and draft an entirely new form of government. This was a bold, perhaps illegal act, but it was in no way irresponsible because nothing the convention might recommend was binding on anyone, and it was absolutely essential because under the Articles a single state could have prevented the adoption of any change. Alexander Hamilton captured the mood of the gathering when he said, “We can only propose and recommend—the power of ratifying or rejecting is still in the States. . . . We ought not to sacrifice the public Good to narrow Scruples.”
World History
