Inequality: The Constitution's Dark Legacy

The United States Constitution, which came into effect in 1789, has been amended 27 times since its creation. The Constitution was drafted in 1787 by delegates from 13 states, and it was intended to revise the existing government structure, which was based on the Articles of Confederation. The Articles of Confederation, America's first constitution, established a weak central government and gave the Confederation Congress rule-making and funding powers without any enforcement mechanisms. The delegates, representing diverse interests and views, aimed to create a more powerful central government while preserving state power. They bypassed state legislatures and formed ratifying conventions in each state, with ratification by 9 of the 13 states enacting the new government. However, the process revealed deep divisions, with Federalists supporting the Constitution and Anti-Federalists demanding a more explicit protection of individual rights and limitations on government power. The Constitution's creation was a complex and contentious process, reflecting the challenges of establishing a unified nation with varying interests and ideals.

Explore related products

Unjust Debts: How Our Bankruptcy System Makes America More Unequal

$21.51 $27.99

Constitution of the United States (Books of American Wisdom)

$9.25 $9.95

Fiscal Disobedience: An Anthropology of Economic Regulation in Central Africa (In-Formation)

$40.01 $50

Nature, Culture, and Inequality: A Comparative and Historical Perspective

$16 $23.99

Inequality in U.S. Social Policy: An Historical Analysis

$63.82 $97.99

The Price of Inequality: How Today's Divided Society Endangers Our Future

$11.55 $18.95

The Articles of Confederation were weak and lacked enforcement powers

The Articles of Confederation, America's first constitution, gave the Confederation Congress the power to make rules and request funds from the states. However, it lacked enforcement powers, which made it weak and ineffective. Congress lacked the authority to regulate commerce, making it unable to protect or standardise trade between foreign nations and the various states. This weakness was recognised as early as 1784, when Congress requested that the states grant it limited power over commerce for a period of fifteen years, but many states did not comply.

The inability to regulate commerce was not the only shortcoming of the Articles of Confederation. Congress also lacked the power to levy taxes, as it could only request that states contribute to the common treasury. Additionally, Congress could not act directly upon the states or individuals, which made it difficult to enforce treaties with foreign powers. The weaknesses in the Articles of Confederation became more apparent over time, as Congress struggled to raise funds, regulate trade, or conduct foreign policy without the voluntary agreement of the states.

The lack of enforcement powers meant that the Articles of Confederation could not effectively address the disputes between states over territory, war pensions, taxation, and trade. These disputes threatened to tear the young country apart, leading to fears that the country was on the brink of collapse. The states' loyalty to their own interests and power made it challenging to establish a strong central government.

The delegates at the Constitutional Convention in 1787 recognised the need for a completely new government rather than simply revising the Articles of Confederation. They crafted a powerful central government, bypassing the state legislatures and calling for special ratifying conventions in each state. This new government, established by the United States Constitution, provided the much-needed enforcement powers and central authority that were lacking under the Articles of Confederation.

The Federalists and Anti-Federalists were divided over the Constitution

The Federalists supported the formation of a new federal government and the ratification of the new Constitution. They believed that dividing the government into separate branches with checks and balances would prevent any one branch or person from becoming too powerful. They argued that the federal courts had limited jurisdiction, and that these courts were necessary to protect citizens from government abuse and guarantee their liberty. Federalists felt that a stronger national government was required, and that the nation might not survive without the passage of the Constitution.

The Anti-Federalists, on the other hand, opposed the ratification of the Constitution, arguing that it granted too much power to the federal government at the expense of the states and local governments. They believed that the federal government would be too far removed from the people and unable to represent the average citizen effectively. They demanded a more explicit Constitution that clearly laid out the rights of the people and the limitations of government power, including guaranteed protection for basic liberties such as freedom of speech and trial by jury.

The Anti-Federalists' call for a bill of rights was their most powerful weapon in the debate. They attacked the proposed Constitution for its vagueness and lack of specific protections against tyranny. The Federalists eventually conceded to the demand for a bill of rights, adding it in 1791 to gain the support of the Anti-Federalists and ensure the ratification of the Constitution.

The Constitution lacked specific protections against tyranny

The United States Constitution, which came into force in 1789, has been amended 27 times since its inception. The first ten amendments, known as the Bill of Rights, provide specific protections for individual liberty and justice and restrict the federal government's powers.

The Constitution faced criticism from its inception, with Anti-Federalists demanding a more explicit and unequivocal Constitution that outlined the rights of the people and the limitations of the government. One of the most prominent critics, Patrick Henry, attacked the proposed Constitution for its lack of specific protections against tyranny, deeming it vague and inferior. Richard Henry Lee shared similar sentiments, lamenting the absence of provisions to safeguard "essential rights of mankind without which liberty cannot exist."

The Anti-Federalists' concerns were not without merit. The Constitution lacked explicit safeguards to prevent the concentration of power and the potential abuse of authority. The Federalists, who supported the Constitution, aimed to address these shortcomings through amendments. However, the process of amending the Constitution was challenging, and most of the proposed amendments never made it past the Congressional committees.

The lack of protections against tyranny in the original Constitution was a significant concern. The Federalists, including James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and George Washington, recognised the need for a stronger central government to address the weaknesses of the Articles of Confederation, which had limited enforcement powers and could not regulate commerce or print money. However, the Anti-Federalists feared that a powerful central government could lead to tyranny if not adequately checked and balanced.

The Constitution's ambiguity regarding the separation of powers and the scope of federal authority contributed to concerns about the potential for tyranny. The Federalists' vision, as exemplified by Alexander Hamilton's proposal for a strong executive, a senate with members serving for good behaviour, and unrestricted legislative power, raised alarms among Anti-Federalists who had recently emerged from monarchical rule.

In conclusion, the Constitution's lack of specific protections against tyranny was a valid concern raised by the Anti-Federalists. While the Federalists aimed to address these shortcomings through amendments, the process was challenging, and the original Constitution lacked explicit safeguards to prevent the concentration of power and the potential abuse of authority.

Explore related products

Persistent Inequalities: Wage Disparity Under Capitalist Competition

$93.57

The Menace of Prosperity: New York City and the Struggle for Economic Development, 1865–1981 (Historical Studies of Urban America)

$32.5 $31.99

The Creation of Inequality: How Our Prehistoric Ancestors Set the Stage for Monarchy, Slavery, and Empire

$27 $27

Education and Inequality: Historical and Contemporary Trajectories

$60

The Economic Condition of Black America in the Twentieth Century: A Historical and Empirical Analysis

$16.5 $16.5

Literature and Inequality: Nine Perspectives from the Napoleonic Era through the First Gilded Age

$23.16 $24.95

The delegates at the Constitutional Convention wanted a powerful central government

James Madison, a key figure in the Convention, believed that a strong central government was the solution to America's problems. He wanted to push the new Constitution towards his Virginia Plan, which outlined goals and a broad structure. Madison, along with other nationalists, successfully persuaded members that any new constitution should be ratified by the people and not by Congress or state legislatures.

The delegates, representing diverse interests and views, crafted compromises to balance centralized power with state autonomy. They agreed to a model of government that divided federal authority between the legislative, judicial, and executive branches, creating a system of checks and balances.

The final Constitution established a federal government with more specific powers, including the authority to conduct foreign relations. While the executive branch handled foreign affairs, the legislative branch retained powers such as treaty ratification.

The delegates also agreed to empower Congress to end the slave trade by 1808 and strengthen the Fugitive Slave Clause. However, the absence of a bill of rights in the Constitution became a significant point of contention, with opponents arguing for individual liberties and state rights. Despite these disagreements, the Constitution was ratified by 9 of the 13 states, reflecting a pro-Constitution majority.

The Constitution was vague and inferior, according to Anti-Federalists

The Anti-Federalists were a late-18th-century political movement that opposed the creation of a stronger US federal government and the ratification of the 1787 Constitution. They believed that the Constitution was vague and inferior, lacking specific protections against tyranny and the loss of individual liberties. Led by Patrick Henry of Virginia, the Anti-Federalists argued that the Constitution, as drafted, would lead to an erosion of state sovereignty and the potential for the rise of tyranny. They wanted a more concise and unequivocal Constitution that laid out the rights of the people and the limitations of the power of the government. Richard Henry Lee, another prominent Anti-Federalist, lamented the lack of provisions to protect "those essential rights of mankind without which liberty cannot exist".

The Anti-Federalists believed that the new Constitution consolidated too much power in the hands of Congress, at the expense of the states. They feared that the position of president, then a novelty, might evolve into a monarchy. They advocated for a more decentralized form of government with greater protections for individual rights and stronger representation for the states. They were worried that the national government would be too powerful and would threaten states' rights and individual liberties.

The Anti-Federalists also believed that a large central government would not serve the interests of small towns and rural areas, as opposed to the urban interests that most Federalist delegates aligned with. They included small farmers, landowners, shopkeepers, and laborers, and they favored strong state governments, a weak central government, the direct election of government officials, short term limits for officeholders, and the strengthening of individual liberties. They also believed that the Constitution provided insufficient rights in the courts, such as no guarantee of juries in civil cases or local juries in criminal cases.

The Anti-Federalists' call for a bill of rights was their most powerful weapon. They demanded that the Constitution include specific protections of Americans' civil liberties. In response to their demands, the Federalists agreed to consider amendments to be added to the new Constitution, which eventually became the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights is a list of 10 constitutional amendments that secure the basic rights and privileges of American citizens, including the right to free speech, the right to a speedy trial, the right to due process under the law, and protections against cruel and unusual punishments.

Frequently asked questions