The transition of the United States from a small and rather helpless group of colonies to one of the most influential powers in the world has been a long journey. Some might argue that it would ultimately have failed if not for the Founding Fathers and their heroic efforts during the Philadelphia Convention. The very notion of America as a nation seems to originate from democratic ideas expressed in the Constitution. Despite that, certain critics disagree that the Founding Fathers were, in fact, democratic or that their intentions were noble. In order to make a conclusive judgment regarding this dilemma, it is crucial to examine the historical context of the U.S. Constitution’s ratification. In the 18th century, the emerging nation required change related to the existing confederate government to survive and sustain itself. This paper argues that George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Alexander Hamilton, and other Constitutionalists were democratic and that all the criticisms fail to consider these men’s need to remain reasonable and appease the majority.
History lessons and media contributed to the idealization of the Founding Fathers and their actions. They are always portrayed as “generally noble, with strong personal narratives, undergirded by faith and patriotism” (Shorto 2010). In order to determine whether they were truly democratic, it is important to assess the content of their proposals, which have become the basis of the Constitution. First, it is evident that the new Constitution enforces the concept of republicanism, which refers to the inherently democratic principle of citizenship and election of representatives. Second, the Constitution emphasizes the importance of another democratic theory, social contract. According to this philosophy, there should be an agreement between citizens and those who govern them. It gives consent from the citizens to be governed as long as the authorities do not abuse their power and vow to protect individuals’ natural rights.
The existence of natural rights is another democratic concept imbedded in the text of the Constitution, which the Founding Fathers were fighting to ratify. Lastly, the U.S. Constitution establishes a system, which ensures that the regime’s power is restricted by formal regulations, which is the basis of limited government. Thus, it is apparent that the Founding Fathers’ ideas are truly democratic. In fact, they have served as a foundation for all the new human rights and civil liberties developments in the country for the past 350 years.
Despite the aforementioned Constitutional concepts rooted in democratic principles, some might argue that there is a limit to the Founders’ noble intentions. Alfred F. Young (1988) noted that George Washington, Alexander Hamilton, and other Constitutionalists were members of an elite class who could not possibly address inequality, violence, and financial burden faced by ordinary people in the country. Thus, some may conclude that the Founding Fathers were no one but a group of well-educated and pampered gentlemen who sought the excitement of political intrigue and wanted to stroke their egos. Ralph Waldo Emerson (1837) refers to such members of privileged classes as bookworms “who value books as such; not as related to nature and the human constitution.” Moreover, Young (1988) mentions that the Founding Fathers primarily followed their personal interests and tried to secure economic gains from the ratification of the new Constitution. Thus, the intentions of Alexander Hamilton, Benjamin Franklin, and others were far from noble or democratic.
In the context of the historical events taking place right before 1787, the argument of the aforementioned critics seems weak. The Founding Fathers acknowledged the need to move away from the Articles of Confederation to an updated Constitution. The reasons for that were varied and included the emerging nation’s economic struggles and legislative inefficiencies. The majority of the United States’ issues stemmed from the absence of a central government. The Congress had no authority to control trade, impose one currency, tax people, or set up an independent judiciary. In addition, there were many difficulties in the process of passing new legislature, which was worsen by an inefficient amendment process.
The Founding Fathers simply followed the rules of the political game they were now a part of. First, they faced a challenge of securing a balance between individual liberties and the order necessary for the nation to sustain itself. Second, they had to maneuver in order to convince the majority of privileged white males in power to ratify the Constitution. According to John P. Roche (1961, 802), “the state legislatures obviously would have the final say on any proposals that might emerge from the Convention,” which pressured Alexander Hamilton, George Washington, and other Founders rather reasonable in their proposals. The 18th century was far from the Utopia, which meant that the Constitutionalists could not suggest immediate radical change (Roche 1961). Therefore, with the help of numerous compromises, they set up a framework, which would allow the development of democratic processes in the future
In conclusion, the Founding Fathers were democratic and had good intentions. The nation needed reforms in order to survive and prosper. The Constitutionalists offered a new political framework, which contained reasonable enough proposals for the privileged members of the state authorities to ratify. The democratic notions of the U.S. Constitution became the basis of the future developments in the fields of civil liberties, human rights, and political freedom.
References
Emerson, Ralph Waldo. 1837. “The American Scholar.” ArchiveVCU. Web.
Roche, John P. 1961. “The Founding Fathers: A Reform Caucus in Action.” American Political Science Review 55 (4): 799–816.
Shorto, Russell. 2010. “How Christian Were the Founders?” The New York Times, Web.
Young, Alfred F. 1988. “The Framers of the Constitution and the “Genius” of the People.” Radical History Review 42: 8–18.