Share & Save:
Print
Digg This!
Reddit!
Newsvine!
Yahoo!
Del.icio.us!
Tell a Friend:

I think you will enjoy this new article from Virtual Citizens titled "The Founding Fathers: democrats they aint part II".

Part II of “The Founding Fathers - democrats they ain’t”

The belief that the Founding Fathers, in writing the Constitution, intended to establish democratic government is deeply ingrained within the American people – and patently wrong.  While the authors of the Constitution had several objectives, establishing a democracy was not one.  Indeed, their intention was exactly the opposite – to prevent establishment of democratic government.  This essential truth is kept from Americans as children, where they are indoctrinated through “school” where teachers offer a mythology of American instead of a recollection of events within the context and through the actual texts of history.

To compliment a previous article, an examination of the background and thoughts of authors of the Constitution clearly demonstrates their opposition to democratic governance.

James Madison (Va.), the “Father of the Constitution” drew much of his ideas from Lockean Liberalism, and natural law (for him the latter meant that part of God’s plan was that some were just born into a lower station: women, slaves, Indians).  Madison saw people as inherently evil and unequal and believed that an individual’s liberty was dependent upon man-made, unequal, property holdings.  Perhaps Madison saw human beings as inherently evil because, as a slave owner, he recognized the evil in his own soul.

Madison understood, as he wrote in Federalist #10 (and as Marx would argue some 60 years later), "the most common and durable source of faction has been the various and unequal distribution of property.  Those who hold, and those who are without property, have ever formed distinct interests in society.”

Further, Madison said that as property and wealth were distributed unequally, the primary purpose of government should be to maintain those inequalities, as to protect the privileged few.

“The diversity in the faculties of men, from which the rights of property originate, is not less an insuperable obstacle to a uniformity of interests. The protection of these faculties is the first object of government.”  (Federalist #10)

Madison intended for the Constitution to protect the propertied class from the “wicked projects” of the people (like the equal distribution of land), believing that the Republic he envisioned would prevent “the rest” (meaning the vast majority of the poor) from "discovering their own strength" and "acting in union with each other."  It is much to my chagrin that Madison’s dream is our reality.

Charles Pinckney (S.C.) enslaved human beings.  He believed only those persons who owned property should be permitted to occupy public office.  As most Lockean Liberals, Pinckney thought that the primary purpose of government should be to protect the holdings of property owners.  Pinckney opposed virtually any participation in the political process by the general population, arguing “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 (S.C.), like his 2nd cousin Charles Pinckney, was a slave owner and believed government should be controlled by the propertied class.  Consequently, he opposed salaries for Senators to ensure all Senators would be men of wealth (an ideal extended in Texas whose legislators are part-time and draw a salary of about $7,200).  The General sought to empower the national government with “stiff measures to restrain the urges of arrant democracy.”

Edmund Randolph (Va.), another slave owner, believed the Constitution should check the popular will to prevent the “turbulence and follies of democracy.”  He also believed the Senate should be restricted to men of property and wealth.

George Read (De.) owned slaves and supported abolishing the states in order to form a unitary national government in which the president, like a monarch, would serve for life and exercised  absolute veto authority.

John Rutledge (S.C.) was a slave owner and one of the Convention’s strongest defenders of slavery.  As is common to Lockean Liberals, Rutledge argued “Interest alone is the governing principle with Nations.”  For Rutledge, especially on the issue of slavery, questions of religion and morality were irrelevant.  Rather, the over riding consideration should be interest grounded in economic production and profit.

Rutledge argued that Northern states should accept slavery because it was in their interest to do so.  First, the legality of slavery was a condition of Southern states joining in a union with the North.  Second, Rutledge insisted that Southern slavery “will increase the commodities of which the Northern states will become the carriers.”  The contentions of Rutledge are demonstrated in How the North Promoted, Prolonged and Profited from Slavery by Farrow, Lang and Frank and another text Slavery in New York, Berlin and Harris (editors).

Roger Sherman (Conn.) was one of the few signers of the Constitution who also signed the Declaration of Independence and the Articles of Confederation.  Unlike most delegates, he did not support a strong national government.  But neither did he support democracy, arguing that, “the people immediately should have as little to do as [possible] about the government.  They [lack] information and are constantly liable to be misled.”

Of the latter, Sherman would appear to have a point given how easily modern-day Americans are led into imperial (mis)adventures such as Viet Nam and Iraq, to name but two of many.  (To learn of other American imperial moves see Smedley Butler, War is a Racket, and Stephen Kinzer, Overthrow).

Hugh Williamson (N.C.) favored shifting power from the states to a strong national government, primarily because he believed that a strong national government would be more conducive to the accumulation of wealth.

As Jerry Fresia shows in Toward an American Revolution (the source of much of the foregoing information), most Convention delegates deeply opposed democracy and strongly advocated government by the propertied class.  However, Fresia also notes that a few delegates who, while perhaps not advocates of democracy, supported the general population having more influence and control over the national government.

These men included Gunning Bedford (De.) who believed the Constitution unduly restricted the “Representatives of the People.”  Though Benjamin Franklin (Pa.) signed the Constitution, he disliked it, seeing it for the anti-democratic document it was.  Luther Martin (Md.) refused to sign the Constitution because he believed it advantaged the propertied class and disadvantaged the non-propertied class too much.  He became a leader in opposing ratification.

William Patterson (N.J.) opposed creation of a strong central government and left the convention before the Constitution was completed.  Caleb Strong (Ma.) wanted annual elections to Congress and also left the Convention before the Constitution was completed.

Delegates to the Constitutional Convention well understood what they were doing.  Most approved, some strongly so.  A few disapproved.  Some, like Franklin signed the document anyway.  Others left, some becoming leaders in opposing ratification.  If we look closely at the ratification debate, we see the issue of democracy and the anti-democratic nature of the Constitution being articulated clearly.  Yet today, the common belief is the exact opposite of historical fact.

How can anyone conclude that the Constitution is the founding document to create an American democracy when the men who wrote it and ratified it are on record as opposing democratic government and supporting plutocracy – and supporting ratification for the purpose of preventing democracy?  If they opposed democracy, why would they write a document establishing a democracy?  How can anyone look at the positions these men took, the things they said, and conclude the supported “participatory democracy,” a classless society or “equal opportunity”?

These are simple yet fundamental questions.  While amendments have lessened the anti-democratic nature of the Constitution and hence the American government, they have not converted the Constitution into a democratic document.  Today, as roughly 230 years ago, we have government of the people, by the propertied class, for the propertied class.

Our political system will make a lot more sense once we recognize the Constitution as the anti-democratic document it is.  When we see the fundamental and systemic anti-democratic nature of the American government, perhaps we can seek to make changes that are not superficial, but essential.

Dr. Freeman teaches courses in political science and government at the University of Texas-Pan American in Edinburg, Texas. Is a veteran of the Vietnam war and a proud peace activist.

A version of this article was published in:

The Advance News Journal
1101 S. Cage
Pharr, Texas 78577

(Top)

(Top)