AP US History—24 Oct 2007-- Establishing Common Ground
Charles Beard (who with his wife Mary wrote several large and important general histories) was asked by a publisher if he could write a book on the lessons of history. He said that he could do it in four sentences:
1. Whom the Gods would destroy; they first make mad with power.
2. The mills of God grind slowly, but they grind exceedingly small.
3. The bee fertilizes the flower it robs.
4. When it is dark enough, you can see the stars.
The Paris Peace Treaty of 1783
Although Cornwallis' surrender at Yorktown in the Fall of 1781 marked the end of the Revolutionary War, minor battles between the British and the colonists continued for another two years. Finally, in February of 1783 George III issued his Proclamation of Cessation of Hostilities, culminating in the Peace Treaty of 1783. Signed in Paris on September 3, 1783, the agreement--- also known as the Paris Peace Treaty-- formally ended the United States War for Independence. Representing the United States were John Adams, Benjamin Franklin and John Jay, all of whom signed the treaty. In addition to giving formal recognition to the U.S., the nine articles that embodied the treaty:
1. established U.S. boundaries,
2. specified certain fishing rights,
3. allowed creditors of each country to be paid by citizens of the other,
4. restored the rights and property of Loyalists,
5. opened up the Mississippi River to citizens of both nations and
6. provided for evacuation of all British forces.
So… now it was time for the colonists to consolidate their gains and make the transition to peace. Successful revolutions face a crisis period after victory has been achieved; the risk is that the revolutionaries might turn upon themselves. The Constitutional convention marks a time where just such misfortune might have befallen the victorious rebels…
personalty
n. personal property.
What comes to the minds of most people when they think of the constitutional convention is a gathering of scholarly gentlemen who sought to create a government that was for the people and by the people. In all facets of the documents this holds true. Nowhere in the Constitution are there rules that protect any one class in its rights or property over any other. The Constitution does not distinguish differences by descent, opinion, religion, or property. In these respects the founding fathers have much credit owed to them.
In An Economic interpretation of the Constitution of the United States Charles Beard refutes this perception of the founding fathers.
“The whole theory of the economic interpretation of history,” Beard states, “rests upon the concept that social progress in general is the result of contending interests in society…”(p.19).
By researching the classes and social groups that existed at the time previous to the adoption of the Constitution those who would have most immediately gained and benefited by the overthrow of the old system and adoption of the new system would be made clear.
Beard goes methodically through who was in the convention and the person’s financial standing, the states involved in the ratification and where her finances were found.
To begin to make sense of why those at the convention were there and what they sought to protect one needs to be familiar with the problems that existed and the specific interests that existed at the time before the adoption of the Constitution.
Under the Articles of Confederation there was a loose union of thirteen sovereign states. The national government consisted of a congress with one house in which each state had equal voting power.
There was no executive department or judiciary.
The central government had no power to regulate commerce or tax directly.
In the absence of these powers all branches of the government were rendered helpless, according to Beard. It is necessary to go further in depth into the specific interests of the groups at the convention, which are four fold, to understand what was at stake.
Money
Although personalty in the form of money in interest or investment capital doesn’t come close to what it does today nonetheless it played a role in the politics at the convention. Money capital was suffering in two ways under the Articles of Confederation.
It was difficult to invest money because of the lack of protection for manufacturers, there was an absence of protection for investments in western lands and there existed discrimination against American shipping by foreign countries.
Personalty in money was also in dire straights because of the makers of paper money. There were stay laws (state laws that delayed fulfillment of contracts or voided contracts), pine barren acts, and other mechanisms to depreciate the value of money or to delay the collection of debts. Furthermore, each state had its own form of currency and coinage making it difficult to conduct business across borders. This situation greatly favored debtors, possibly driving creditors into class-consciousness and seeking a means to an end at the convention according to Beard.
Securities
Those who were holders of personalty in public securities were greatly concerned with the establishment of a national government. Under the Articles of Confederation the government was not paying the interest on its debts and its paper money had depreciated to the point it was selling at one-sixth to one-twentieth its par value as Beard put forth. State money was also at a low price because of the reservations people had of the actions of state legislatures. The advantages of a strong national government that would be able to pay off its debts at face value, coin its own money and maintain its worth is obvious.
Industry
The Industrial Revolution was just getting underway in England. Concerns about British discriminatory measures against American shipping and manufacturing were perceived to be disastrous to American economic independence in the future as well as in the present by the pamphleteers.
As early 1785 petitions from manufacturing and shipping centers from around the United States were being sent to state legislatures stating that these groups did not believe the congress had full power or authority over the commerce of the United States.
These groups believed a strong national government would be able to lay and collect tariffs as well as initiate other forms of legislation to safeguard their businesses.
Land Speculation
The final interest was capital invested in western lands. Although companies had been formed before the Revolution to settle the lands of the west effective steps were not taken until after the end of the Revolution. The general ignorance concerning the west and the depreciated value of money made speculation a lucrative business.
Under the Articles of Confederation a policy of accepting certificates in part payment for western lands was adopted. It was believed the national debt could be paid off in this way. However, the weakness of the government, the lack of a military, and uncertainty as to the frontier kept the value of the land abnormally low.
The advantages a strong national government were obvious, a military to protect the people, organized means of settling the land and appreciation of money would make speculators wealthy.
How did the representatives of these separate interests have their opinions voiced at the convention? The answer came in the chapter entitled “Safeguards In Election Of Delegates.”
In the chapter it is made clear that a majority of the states placed direct property qualifications on the voters and the other states eliminated practically all who were not taxpayers. Special safeguards for property were secured in the qualifications imposed on members of the legislature in a number of states.
Someone who is well versed in the Constitution would interject but there are no property qualifications to vote in the Constitution. That is correct, but not for reasons one might presume. Property qualifications were not left out because it was the right thing to do, to allow all men to participate in government, but rather it was because of economic reasons it was left out.
James Madison clearly put forth the reasoning behind not imposing slight property qualifications.
It would first not exclude small farmers (whose paper money ideas had been so detrimental to personalty),
and property qualifications would exclude those representatives who were not landowners, the manufacturing and shipping personalty, and it was not believed the manufacturing and shipping personalty would turn their personalty to land.
The pursuit of wealth greatly affected decisions at the convention.
Beard offers us the following:
The delegates at the convention were most likely there because they felt they had a chance of gaining wealth and they were going to make sure in some form or another actions were taken to secure their economic means. This gave the few independent thinkers the luxury to speak their minds and voice their opinions, knowing full well the economic safety of most every delegate would be ensured by the others at the convention.
Beard examines the Americans who had no say in the Constitution. The amount of citizens who could not vote or participate in its formation is immense. These people were women, slaves, indented servants, the mass of men who could not qualify for voting under the property tests imposed by state constitutions and laws.
The working class had almost no say in the adoption of the Constitution and the leaders did not appear to show interest in sharing that power.
Conclusions
The movement for the Constitution of the United States was originated and carried through principally by four groups of personalty interests which had been adversely affected under the Articles of Confederation: money, public securities, manufactures, and trade and shipping.
The first firm steps toward the formation of the Constitution were taken by a small and active group of men immediately interested through their personal possessions in the outcome of their work.
No popular vote was taken directly or indirectly on the proposition to call the Convention which drafted the Constitution.
A large propertyless mass was, under the prevailing suffrage qualifications, excluded at the outset from participation (through representatives) in the work of framing the Constitution.
The members of the Philadelphia Convention which drafted the Constitution were, with a few exceptions, immediately, directly, and personally interested in, and derived economic advantages from, the establishment of the new system.
The Constitution was essentially an economic document based upon the concept that the fundamental private rights of property are anterior to (in front of) government and morally beyond the reach of popular majorities.
The major portion of the members of the Convention are on record as recognizing the claim of property to a special and defensive position in the Constitution.
In the ratification, of the Constitution, about three-fourths of the adult males failed to vote on the question, having abstained from the elections at which delegates to the state conventions were chosen, either on account of their indifference or their disfranchisement by property qualifications.
The Constitution was ratified by a vote of probably not more than one-sixth of the adult males. It is questionable whether a majority of the voters participating in the elections for the state conventions in New York, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Virginia, and South Carolina, actually approved the ratification of the Constitution.
The leaders who supported the Constitution in the ratifying conventions represented the same economic groups as the members of the Philadelphia Convention; and in a large number of instances they were also directly and personally interested in the outcome of their efforts.
In the ratification, it became manifest that the line of cleavage for and against the Constitution was between substantial personalty interests on the one hand and the small farming and debtor interests on the other.
The Constitution was not created by “the whole people” as the jurists have said; neither was it created by “the states” as Southern nullifiers long contended; but it was the work of a consolidated group whose interests knew no state boundaries and were truly national in their scope.