Revolution's Legacy: Constitution's Fulfillment Of America's Goals

The US Constitution is considered by many to be the ideological fulfillment of the American Revolution, translating the ideals of the Revolution into reality for all Americans. However, this view is contested, with discrepancies between the beliefs of the Revolution's leaders and the government outlined in the Constitution. The Constitution was created just a few years after the Revolutionary War, as James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and George Washington feared the young country was on the brink of collapse. The Constitution's formation and adoption established a powerful central government, but it is debated whether it truly reflected the principles of natural rights, popular sovereignty, and the rule of law that were at the core of the American Revolution.

Explore related products

The Constitution of the United States and The Declaration of Independence

$1.99 $6.95

Mark Twain American History Workbook, Grades 6-12, Exploration, American Revolution, and Constitution, 13 Original US Colonies, and Declaration of ... (American History Series) (Volume 4)

$12.99 $13.99

The Constitution of the United States of America: The Declaration of Independence, The Bill of Rights

$9.99 $9.99

The U.S. Constitution: Explained--Clause by Clause--for Every American Today

$9.97 $12

The American Revolution: A Concise History from Colonial Rebellion to the War for Independence to the Constitution

$14.99 $19.95

The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution: Fiftieth Anniversary Edition

$17.95 $27

The Constitution as the fulfillment of the Revolution

The US Constitution is often considered the ideological fulfillment of the goals of the American Revolution. The American Revolution was influenced by principles such as natural rights, popular sovereignty, the rule of law, and the social contract. These ideals are reflected in the US Constitution, which establishes a government that is responsive to popular will while also preserving stability and protecting the rights of minorities.

The Constitution was created just a few years after the Revolutionary War, as James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and George Washington feared that the young country was on the brink of collapse. America's first constitution, the Articles of Confederation, had given the Confederation Congress the power to make rules and request funds from the states, but it lacked enforcement powers and could not regulate commerce or print money. The disputes among the states over territory, war pensions, taxation, and trade threatened to tear the country apart.

To address these issues, Alexander Hamilton helped convince Congress to organize a Grand Convention of state delegates to revise the Articles of Confederation. The Constitutional Convention assembled in Philadelphia in May 1787, and on September 17, 1787, 38 delegates signed the Constitution, creating a new form of government. The delegates, representing diverse interests and views, crafted compromises and established a powerful central government. They bypassed the state legislatures and called for special ratifying conventions in each state, with ratification by 9 of the 13 states enacting the new government.

However, it is important to note that there are discrepancies between the ideals of the Revolution and the government created by the Constitution. The Anti-Federalists opposed the Constitution as it created a powerful central government that reminded them of the one they had just overthrown, and it lacked a bill of rights. State-by-state analyses reveal differences between the provisions in the state constitutions that emerged during the Revolution and the strong central government formed by the Constitution.

In conclusion, while the US Constitution is generally regarded as the fulfillment of the American Revolution, there are complexities and discrepancies to consider. The Constitution established a powerful central government that addressed the challenges faced by the young nation, but it also deviated from the ideals of the Revolution in certain respects.

Discrepancies between Revolutionary ideals and the Constitution

While it is commonly believed that the US Constitution was the ultimate ideological fulfillment of the goals of the American Revolution, there are several discrepancies between the ideals of the Revolution and the government that was created by the Constitution.

Firstly, the Constitution established a strong, central government with a powerful President, while the Anti-Federalist leaders during the Revolution advocated for a weaker central government. The Anti-Federalists opposed the Constitution as they believed it created a powerful central government reminiscent of the one they had just overthrown, and it lacked a bill of rights. The Federalists, on the other hand, supported a strong central government, believing it was necessary to address the nation's challenges.

Secondly, the Constitution granted the President significant powers, including the Commander-in-Chief power, the veto power, and the power to pardon, which may not have aligned with the beliefs of the leaders of the Revolution. The Articles of Confederation, America's first constitution, gave the Confederation Congress rule-making and funding powers, but it lacked enforcement powers and the ability to regulate commerce or print money.

Thirdly, the state-by-state analyses of the provisions in the new state constitutions that emerged during the Revolution and the ideas in the speeches and writings of Anti-Federalist leaders differ significantly from the central government formed by the Constitution. This discrepancy highlights the importance of state-level issues in the political discourse at the time.

Lastly, the Constitution, as a foundation for American democracy, was based on principles such as natural rights, popular sovereignty, and the rule of law. These principles, influenced by ancient and Enlightenment thinkers, were also at the core of the American Revolution. However, the specific interpretation and implementation of these principles may have differed between the Revolution and the Constitution.

The Articles of Confederation and the threat of collapse

The Articles of Confederation, officially the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union, was an agreement and early body of law in the Thirteen Colonies. It served as the United States' first constitution, coming into force on March 1, 1781, and remaining in effect until 1789 when the present-day Constitution was ratified.

The Articles were debated and finalized by the Second Continental Congress between July 1776 and November 1777. They established a weak confederal government, granting it only those powers that the former colonies recognized as belonging to the British Crown and Parliament during the colonial era. The central government had limited powers in assembling delegates, raising funds, and regulating commerce, which hampered its ability to govern effectively.

The Articles' inability to establish an effective unifying government became increasingly apparent, and the threat of internal conflict within and between the states loomed large, especially after Shays's Rebellion threatened the state government of Massachusetts. The central government lacked the power to tax and was generally ineffective in setting commercial policy or supporting war efforts. It struggled with a depleted treasury, inflation, and territorial disputes, and was unable to settle quarrels between states.

In May 1786, Charles Pinckney of South Carolina proposed that Congress revise the Articles of Confederation to address these issues. However, Congress failed to reach a consensus, and in May 1787, the Constitutional Convention assembled in Philadelphia to revise the Articles, ultimately leading to the creation of the new Constitution.

Explore related products

Unruly Americans and the Origins of the Constitution

$20 $21.49

The History of the Constitution: Notable Events for Young Readers

$4.99 $7.99

What Is the Constitution? (What Was?)

$3.89 $5.99

The Origins of the American Constitution: A Documentary History

$15.52 $24

A More Perfect Union: The Story of Our Constitution

$7.77 $11.99

The Debate on the Constitution: Federalist and Anti-Federalist Speeches, Articles, and Letters During the Struggle over Ratification 1787-1788: A Library of America Boxed Set

$77.94 $85

The role of Federalists and Anti-Federalists in the ratification process

The Federalists and Anti-Federalists played pivotal roles in the ratification process of the US Constitution, which was drafted in 1787 and ratified in 1788, coming into effect in 1789. The Federalists supported the ratification, while the Anti-Federalists opposed it.

The Federalists, including notable figures like Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, and Madison, believed that a strong central government was necessary and that the nation might not survive without the Constitution. They argued that the Constitution provided a system of checks and balances, with separation of powers into three equal branches, preventing any one person or group from becoming too powerful. They saw this as a safeguard against tyranny and an assurance that the government would not overstep its constitutionally defined powers.

On the other hand, the Anti-Federalists, including Elbridge Gerry, Edmund Randolph, and George Mason, argued that the Constitution gave too much power to the federal government at the expense of state and local governments. They feared that the national government would be too far removed from the concerns of ordinary citizens and that wealthy aristocrats would monopolize power, undermining local state elites. The Anti-Federalists also took issue with the absence of a Bill of Rights in the original draft of the Constitution, which they believed was necessary to secure basic rights and freedoms, such as freedom of speech and the right to a trial by jury.

The ratification process required the approval of at least nine out of the thirteen state legislatures, and the Anti-Federalists played a crucial role in this process. In three crucial states—Massachusetts, Virginia, and New York—the Anti-Federalists made their support for ratification contingent on the inclusion of a Bill of Rights. James Madison, a Federalist, eventually agreed to draft a list of rights, which became the Bill of Rights, securing basic rights and privileges for American citizens.

The ratification debates and the roles of the Federalists and Anti-Federalists highlight the contrasting visions of the American republic and democracy that existed during this formative period in US history. The Federalists ultimately prevailed in the ratification process, but the Anti-Federalists' efforts led to the inclusion of important safeguards and protections for individual liberties in the US Constitution.

The influence of ancient and enlightenment thinkers on key principles like natural rights and popular sovereignty

The Enlightenment, in the mid-1700s, saw European philosophers and scientists use the ideas and methods of science to examine humans and human societies. This movement emphasised the idea that all humans have the ability to reason and form their own societies, and are thus entitled to certain universal and inalienable rights, or "natural rights". The concept of natural rights challenged the divine right of kings and became a justification for the establishment of a social contract, positive law, and legal rights. This led to classical republicanism, built on concepts such as civil society, civic virtue, and mixed government.

The Enlightenment's emphasis on human equality gave people from a range of backgrounds reason to believe that they might begin to share the privileges reserved for elite European men. The 1789 French Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen, for example, said nothing about race or sex, leading many to assume that the liberties it proclaimed were universal.

The idea of natural rights was not new to the Enlightenment. Ancient Greek and Roman philosophers, such as the Epicureans, Stoics, and Cicero, had previously discussed the concept. The Epicureans, for example, believed in a form of contractarian ethics, where mortals agree not to harm or be harmed, and that humans in their natural state enjoy personal sovereignty and must consent to the laws that govern them. The Stoics held that no one was a slave by nature, and that slavery was an external condition. The Catholic Church also has a version of natural law, which holds that humans have a moral sense that can discern good from evil, and truth from lies.

During the Enlightenment, John Locke was a prominent Western philosopher who conceptualised rights as natural and inalienable. He is known for his statement that individuals have a right to "life, liberty, and property", and his belief that the natural right to property is derived from labour. Locke's theory of natural rights has influenced many political documents, including the United States Declaration of Independence and the French Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen.

Another Enlightenment thinker, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, believed that society should be ruled by the "general will" of the people, or popular sovereignty. Rousseau's work was dominated by the desire to preserve human freedom, which he believed was threatened by humans' increasing dependence on others.

Frequently asked questions