Simone Lawson
The Founding Fathers of the United States Constitution were among the wealthiest people in the colonies, and they expected this elite group to continue guiding the young nation. They were wary of democracy, which they saw as mob rule, and believed that a democratic government might dissolve into anarchy. They also worried that having tens of thousands of constituents would keep representatives from close contact with ordinary people. Instead, they favoured a mixed government with both republican and democratic features, with the vote reserved for the wealthy and educated.
| Characteristics | Values |
|---|---|
| Democracy | Anarchy |
| Republic | Aristocracy |
| Federalist | Anti-Federalist |
| Wealthy citizens | Common people |
| Direct democracy | Indirect democracy |
| State legislatures | Federal government |
| Bill of Rights | Tyrannous federal government |
| Representative democracy | Populism |
| Mob rule | --- |
Explore related products
What You'll Learn
- The Founding Fathers were among the wealthiest people in the colonies
- They believed that democracy would enable the election of a demagogue
- Critics thought republics would give way to an aristocracy
- The Constitution was criticised for having very few democratic elements
- Anti-Federalists believed the Constitution gave too much power to Congress
The Founding Fathers were among the wealthiest people in the colonies
Many of the Founding Fathers were wealthy before they became involved in the Revolutionary War. For example, George Washington, the colony's unanimous choice to lead the Continental forces, was a planter and a land surveyor. He married the wealthiest widow in the colony after five years of frontier warfare. Benjamin Franklin, a successful printer and publisher, was one of the wealthiest Americans by his early 40s. He invested in 89 rental properties in Philadelphia and land speculation further west.
Some Founding Fathers, however, were not rich. Samuel Adams, who raised the alarm about the growing Parliamentary "taxation without representation," was born to a Boston malt merchant who was bankrupted by the British. John Hancock, on the other hand, was adopted by his uncle, probably the richest merchant in New England.
The Founding Fathers' wealth and social status influenced their political views. They envisioned a limited democracy in which only people of wealth and education could vote. They believed that a democratic government might dissolve into anarchy, while a republican system would lead to an aristocracy. They also worried that too much democracy would lead to populism and mob rule.
Taxation Without Representation: Shaping the US Constitution
You may want to see also
They believed that democracy would enable the election of a demagogue
The Founding Fathers of the United States Constitution were among the wealthiest people in the colonies when they drafted and signed the document. They were eager to shed a monarchical system, but they were also wary of democracy, or what they saw as "mob rule". They believed that a mixed government, containing both republican and democratic features, would be the most resilient system. However, they disagreed on how democratic the nation should be.
The founders expected the common people, the poor and uneducated, to participate indirectly through local government, town halls, meetings, and protest actions like boycotts. They were particularly concerned about populism and mob rule, and they worried that democracy would enable the election of a demagogue. They feared that if everyone were allowed to participate, people would come to power who appealed to the frenzy of the masses.
The Constitution was written so that citizenship rights were very limited. Only one part of one branch of the federal government, the House of Representatives, is popularly elected by the people. The president is chosen by the Electoral College, the commander-in-chief selects the Supreme Court justices, and originally, senators were selected by state legislatures.
The Anti-Federalists, who mobilized against the Constitution in state legislatures across the country, also believed that the liberties of the people were best protected when power resided in state governments, rather than a federal one. They believed that the new Constitution consolidated too much power in the hands of Congress, and that the unitary president resembled a monarch too closely.
The Constitution: Due Process Safeguards
You may want to see also
Critics thought republics would give way to an aristocracy
The United States Constitution was drafted and signed by America's Founding Fathers, who were among the wealthiest people in the colonies. They expected that only people of wealth and education would vote, while the common people, the poor and uneducated, would participate indirectly through local government, town halls, meetings, and protests. The Founding Fathers were concerned about populism and mob rule. They believed that a pure democracy would dissolve into anarchy.
The critics of the U.S. Constitution feared that a republic would give too much power to a small, wealthy group of citizens, leading to an aristocracy. They believed that a democratic form of government would allow "opulent and ambitious" men to subvert "the equality established by our democratic forms of government". One such critic was Rousseau, who said of the new French Republic, "What use is it to us, that we have broken the aristocracy of the nobles, if that is replaced by the aristocracy of the rich?".
The Framers of the Constitution, however, did not agree on how democratic the nation should be. They ultimately created a democratic republic, or a representative democracy, where people vote for representatives to govern on their behalf. They saw to it that only the House of Representatives would be directly elected by the people. The president, senators, and judiciary would be chosen by representatives. The Constitution also allowed state legislatures to decide who was qualified to vote.
The Founding Fathers wrote in a process for changing or amending the Constitution. The original Constitution's democratic elements were limited, but its most radical feature was its ability to be amended. Over the years, Americans have incorporated more democratic elements into their government.
Understanding the Severity of a Level 5 ER Visit
You may want to see also
Explore related products
The Constitution was criticised for having very few democratic elements
The United States Constitution was criticised for having very few democratic elements. The Founding Fathers were among the wealthiest people in the colonies, and they expected that the nation would continue to be guided by people like themselves. They did not want a direct democracy where all Americans could vote on all issues. Instead, they believed that the vote ought to be reserved for the wealthy and educated, while the common people could participate indirectly through local government and protest actions.
The Constitution was also criticised for giving too much power to the federal government at the expense of the states. The Anti-Federalists believed that the liberties of the people were best protected when power resided in state governments. They also believed that the unitary president resembled a monarch too closely, and that the federal government would become tyrannous without a Bill of Rights.
The Constitution was drafted in the summer of 1787, and its ratification was uncertain. It was criticised for not including a Bill of Rights, for declaring all state laws subservient to federal ones, and for creating a king-like office in the presidency. The Founding Fathers were concerned about populism and what they saw as "mob rule". They worried that once everyone was allowed to participate in politics, demagogues would be elected and people would come to power by appealing to the masses.
The Constitution was also criticised for having relatively few democratic elements. The president, senate, and judiciary would be chosen by representatives, rather than the people. Only the House of Representatives would be directly elected. Critics worried that having large constituencies would keep representatives from having close contact with ordinary people. They also worried that since the Constitution allowed state legislatures to decide who was qualified to vote, only property-owning adults would be choosing representatives.
The Three Estates: Pre-Revolutionary France's Social Structure
You may want to see also
Anti-Federalists believed the Constitution gave too much power to Congress
The Anti-Federalists believed that the Constitution gave too much power to Congress at the expense of the states. They saw the unitary executive as resembling a monarch, and believed that the liberties of the people were best protected when power resided in state governments, as opposed to a federal one. They also believed that without a Bill of Rights, the federal government would become tyrannous.
The Anti-Federalists' views on the Constitution were shaped by their concerns about the dangers of democracy. They feared that a democratic government might dissolve into anarchy, and that a republican system would invite an aristocracy to rise. They also worried that the large size of congressional districts would prevent representatives from maintaining close contact with ordinary people.
In addition, the Anti-Federalists believed that the Constitution, as originally written, gave too much power to the federal government. They objected to the absence of a Bill of Rights, the subservience of state laws to federal ones, and the creation of a king-like office in the presidency. They also criticised the process by which senators were chosen, arguing that senators should be elected by direct popular vote.
The Anti-Federalists' opposition to the Constitution was not uniform, and they held varying views on the ideal form of government for the United States. However, they generally agreed that the Constitution, as drafted, gave too much power to Congress. Their mobilisation against the Constitution in state legislatures across the country created a powerful current against its adoption.
Political Parties: Exploring Their Constitutional Roots
You may want to see also
Frequently asked questions
The Founding Fathers, who were among the wealthiest people in the colonies, worried that the Constitution was too democratic. They believed that the vote should be reserved for people of wealth and education.
The Founding Fathers were concerned about populism and "mob rule". They believed that once everyone was allowed to participate, a demagogue would be elected, and people would come to power by appealing to the masses.
They believed that the liberties of the people were best protected when power resided in state governments, rather than a federal one.
They wanted to avoid an aristocracy or oligarchy, where a small, wealthy group of citizens held all the power.
Yes, the Founding Fathers wrote in a process for changing or amending the Constitution. The 12th Amendment, ratified in 1804, established separate Electoral College votes for the president and vice president.
