The Birth of a Democratic Republic
How the Framers Used the Tools of Republican Government to Protect and Promote Democratic Values
by Eric Shapiro - 3-1-2010 - GO 236 Professor Natalie Taylor
In light of subsequent developments, the democratic republic established by the framers of the U.S. Constitution does not seem particularly radical. In the hundreds of years since the American Revolution and the establishment of its government and its Constitution, various forms of populism and increasingly radical ideologies have made the ideas of the founding fathers seem quaint by comparison.
Marxist and progressive historians, who view history through the lens of class conflicts, have painted supporters of the nascent American government as racist aristocrats primarily concerned with maintaining their own wealth at the expense of the masses. There is no doubt some legitimacy to this cynical interpretation of the nation’s history. It is impossible to ignore the less flattering elements of American history, from slavery to the fact that its government has more often than not enacted policies that favor the wealthy.
However, lost on many Americans today is the radical nature of their Constitution and democratic-republican government. In their steadfast devotion to the principles of individual liberty and democracy, the founders devised a system of government that favored the legislature, serving to give the people a substantial say in decisions. That being said, the founders also had a realistic view of human nature and an understanding of its less appealing elements, the most dangerous being mankind’s propensity for self-interest.
Recognizing small-minded self-interest as a fundamental component of human nature that would plague a democracy as much as any other form of government, they embedded a series of safeguards into the Constitution that many, including the Federal Farmer, accused of limiting individual liberty. In reality, such safeguards have more often than not served to protect the rights of individuals and minorities from the tyranny of the majority. The founders knew that structuring a government in a way that was conducive to thorough deliberation and resistant to hasty change was necessary to protect the democratic ideals on which America was founded, as laid out in the Declaration of Independence, from the ever-fluctuating whims of a self-interested majority. A pure democracy, they reasoned, would undermine the very principles on which democracy is based.
Therefore, the American government incorporates republican structural elements that are not consistent with a puredemocracy, including representative government, a series of checks on the legislature, and a national government, as opposed to a federal, government. The founders limited to prevent an inevitable majority faction from infringing on the rights of minorities and individuals. These elements, as explained in the Federalist Papers, were intended to smooth the edges of democracy, to maintain its best qualities while avoiding the pitfalls that were the undoing of its early practitioners.
In limiting democracy and advocating a strong national government, the founders provoked criticism from many Americans who, for reasons both altruistic and self-interested, feared the concentration of power in a national government that they saw as remote from the people. Many feared a loss of individual liberty and an erosion of popular sovereignty. The Federal Farmer expressed these views eloquently in his letters, making a convincing case against the Constitution. In ensuring that government would always remain accountable to the people and limited by a strong Constitution, the founders established an America with republican elements that simultaneously celebrates and functions according to democratic principles.
The essence of American democracy is embedded in the Declaration of Independence. Written by Thomas Jefferson in 1776, the document simultaneously announces the colonists’ decision to sever political bonds with Great Britain and serves as a testament to the equality of man, as well as his right to “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” (Dolbeare 59). Accordingly, “governments are instituted among men, deriving their just power from the consent of the governed” (Dolbeare 59). Jefferson goes on to assert that the people have the right to “alter or abolish” their government if it repeatedly abuses its authority. The Declaration of Independence is a statement of Lockean, democratic principle that defines America. It is a radical, revolutionary document issued in the midst of armed rebellion for the purpose of uniting the people of America behind common principles. It is not, on the other hand, a blueprint for government.
The Articles of Confederation, ratified by all of the states in 1771, was largely consistent with Jefferson’s vision. It called for a federalist system, in which the states were largely trusted to govern themselves. However, it soon became clear to the founders, in light of numerous trade disputes between states, a narrowly thwarted rebellion in Massachusetts and the inability of the central government to raise funds, that the Articles were woefully inadequate (Dolbeare 78).
Thus, several of the founders drafted a constitution that would place more power in the central government while diminishing (but by no means eliminating) the sovereignty of the states. The new Constitution sparked a debate between federalists (such as James Madison and Alexander Hamilton) and anti-federalists (the Federal Farmer) as to whether America should have a federal or a national government. This debate has significant implications on the democratic nature of America. A national government, as Hamilton explains in Federalist No. 40, is one in which the power of a strong central government supercedes that of the individual states in the union (Hamilton 198). A federal government, in contrast, is one in which the states are left independent and take precedence over a weak central government (Hamilton 198). The Federal Farmer argued in favor of a federal system. Despite admitting that the present federalist system was flawed, he felt that the constitution, in establishing what he saw as a national government, would place too much power in the hands of a few and stifle democracy.
The Federal Farmer did not comprehend how the relatively small central government proposed in the constitution could represent the views of the diverse American populace (Federal Farmer 44). He was clearly concerned with the potential for overrepresentation of certain parties in the proposed government, such as the aristocracy, whose members disproportionately composed the Constitutional Convention (Federal Farmer 36), as well as some of the states. “The essential parts of a free and good government,” he said, “are a full and equal representation of the people in the legislature” (Federal Farmer 39). The views of the Federal Farmer’s letters, defined by a suspicion of government and a fierce defense of individual liberty and democracy, are characteristic of American Democratic values.
In Federalist No. 39, Alexander Hamilton countered the Federal Farmer’s claim that a strong central government would not adequately represent the people, as is necessary in a democracy. Hamilton concurs with the Federal Farmer that “It is essential to… a government that [power] be derived from the great body of society, not from… a favored class of it” (Hamilton 194). However, Hamilton differs from the Federal farmer in that he believes that the democratic republic proposed by the Constitution can in fact hold government accountable to the people. He emphasizes term limits as a means for the public to maintain control over a national government, thus safeguarding the principle of democracy.
In drafting the Constitution, the founders were informed by the examples of prior republics that existed in antiquity. The Greco-Roman republics in particular served as cautionary tales that warned of the perils of too much democracy. Alexander Hamilton mentioned in Federalist No. 9 the “sensations of horror and disgust” provoked by such governments “perpetually vibrating between the extremes of anarchy and tyranny” (Hamilton 37). In designing the Constitution, the founders were careful to avoid the democratic excesses of the Greek, Roman and other republics.
In Federalist No. 10, James Madison attributed the chronic instability of the aforementioned republics to “the violence of faction” (Madison 42). Later in the essay, he defines faction as “a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adverse to the rights of other citizens” (Madison 43). According to Madison, individuals have a tendency to split up into groups, or factions, according to their own selfish interests. This results in the introduction of “instability, injustice and confusion” into public council (Madison 42). In other words, a government, however democratic, cannot function when factionalism is permitted to fester unchecked. A democracy has the potential to devour itself if not given the means to “break and control the violence of faction” (Madison 42).
Madison claims that “pure democracy,” in which citizens gather to participate directly in the minutia of government, is insufficient to do so. He proposes that to control faction, America must adopt structuralelementsof a republic that are not necessarily present in a pure democracy. Under Madison and the Federalists’ proposed democratic republic, a “chosen body of citizens” would “refine and enlarge the public view” (Madison 46). If taken out of context, Madison’s words appear to be those of an elitist with little faith in the ability of common folk to govern. In a sense, this is the case.
Embedded in the philosophy of the founders, to a greater or lesser extent, is a bleak view of human nature. That being said, Madison’s goal in proposing a representative republic as opposed to a pure democracy was not to place power in the hands of a few, as in an oligarchy. Rather, he sought to protect the vital democratic spirit of America by ensuring that no majority faction ever finds itself in a position to “sacrifice… the rights of other citizens (Madison 44). His goal, as expressed in Federalist No. 10, is to “secure the public good, and private rights, against the danger of such a faction, and at the same time to preserve the spirit and the form of popular government” (Madison 45).
Drawing from the populist idealism of Thomas Jefferson, as expressed in the Declaration of Independence, and the principled pragmatic views of James Madison and Alexander Hamilton, as detailed in The Federalist Papers the founders fashioned a uniquely American government. The ensuing democratic republic provided the people with a safe and efficient means to make their voices heard, mitigating more effectively than any pure democracy the dangers of a majority faction encroaching on the rights of everyone else.
Bibliography
1. Dolbeare, Kenneth M., and Michael S. Cummings. American Political Thought. 6th ed. Washington D.C: CQ P, 2009
2. Jay, John, Alexander Hamilton, James Madison. The Federalist. Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, 2001. Print.
3. The Federal Farmer. “The Federal Farmer.” Letter to the Republican. May 1787
4. Storing, Herbert J. The anti-Federalist, edited, with commentary and notes, by Herbert J. Storing. Chicago: University of Chicago P, 1985
Marxist and progressive historians, who view history through the lens of class conflicts, have painted supporters of the nascent American government as racist aristocrats primarily concerned with maintaining their own wealth at the expense of the masses. There is no doubt some legitimacy to this cynical interpretation of the nation’s history. It is impossible to ignore the less flattering elements of American history, from slavery to the fact that its government has more often than not enacted policies that favor the wealthy.
However, lost on many Americans today is the radical nature of their Constitution and democratic-republican government. In their steadfast devotion to the principles of individual liberty and democracy, the founders devised a system of government that favored the legislature, serving to give the people a substantial say in decisions. That being said, the founders also had a realistic view of human nature and an understanding of its less appealing elements, the most dangerous being mankind’s propensity for self-interest.
Recognizing small-minded self-interest as a fundamental component of human nature that would plague a democracy as much as any other form of government, they embedded a series of safeguards into the Constitution that many, including the Federal Farmer, accused of limiting individual liberty. In reality, such safeguards have more often than not served to protect the rights of individuals and minorities from the tyranny of the majority. The founders knew that structuring a government in a way that was conducive to thorough deliberation and resistant to hasty change was necessary to protect the democratic ideals on which America was founded, as laid out in the Declaration of Independence, from the ever-fluctuating whims of a self-interested majority. A pure democracy, they reasoned, would undermine the very principles on which democracy is based.
Therefore, the American government incorporates republican structural elements that are not consistent with a puredemocracy, including representative government, a series of checks on the legislature, and a national government, as opposed to a federal, government. The founders limited to prevent an inevitable majority faction from infringing on the rights of minorities and individuals. These elements, as explained in the Federalist Papers, were intended to smooth the edges of democracy, to maintain its best qualities while avoiding the pitfalls that were the undoing of its early practitioners.
In limiting democracy and advocating a strong national government, the founders provoked criticism from many Americans who, for reasons both altruistic and self-interested, feared the concentration of power in a national government that they saw as remote from the people. Many feared a loss of individual liberty and an erosion of popular sovereignty. The Federal Farmer expressed these views eloquently in his letters, making a convincing case against the Constitution. In ensuring that government would always remain accountable to the people and limited by a strong Constitution, the founders established an America with republican elements that simultaneously celebrates and functions according to democratic principles.
The essence of American democracy is embedded in the Declaration of Independence. Written by Thomas Jefferson in 1776, the document simultaneously announces the colonists’ decision to sever political bonds with Great Britain and serves as a testament to the equality of man, as well as his right to “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” (Dolbeare 59). Accordingly, “governments are instituted among men, deriving their just power from the consent of the governed” (Dolbeare 59). Jefferson goes on to assert that the people have the right to “alter or abolish” their government if it repeatedly abuses its authority. The Declaration of Independence is a statement of Lockean, democratic principle that defines America. It is a radical, revolutionary document issued in the midst of armed rebellion for the purpose of uniting the people of America behind common principles. It is not, on the other hand, a blueprint for government.
The Articles of Confederation, ratified by all of the states in 1771, was largely consistent with Jefferson’s vision. It called for a federalist system, in which the states were largely trusted to govern themselves. However, it soon became clear to the founders, in light of numerous trade disputes between states, a narrowly thwarted rebellion in Massachusetts and the inability of the central government to raise funds, that the Articles were woefully inadequate (Dolbeare 78).
Thus, several of the founders drafted a constitution that would place more power in the central government while diminishing (but by no means eliminating) the sovereignty of the states. The new Constitution sparked a debate between federalists (such as James Madison and Alexander Hamilton) and anti-federalists (the Federal Farmer) as to whether America should have a federal or a national government. This debate has significant implications on the democratic nature of America. A national government, as Hamilton explains in Federalist No. 40, is one in which the power of a strong central government supercedes that of the individual states in the union (Hamilton 198). A federal government, in contrast, is one in which the states are left independent and take precedence over a weak central government (Hamilton 198). The Federal Farmer argued in favor of a federal system. Despite admitting that the present federalist system was flawed, he felt that the constitution, in establishing what he saw as a national government, would place too much power in the hands of a few and stifle democracy.
The Federal Farmer did not comprehend how the relatively small central government proposed in the constitution could represent the views of the diverse American populace (Federal Farmer 44). He was clearly concerned with the potential for overrepresentation of certain parties in the proposed government, such as the aristocracy, whose members disproportionately composed the Constitutional Convention (Federal Farmer 36), as well as some of the states. “The essential parts of a free and good government,” he said, “are a full and equal representation of the people in the legislature” (Federal Farmer 39). The views of the Federal Farmer’s letters, defined by a suspicion of government and a fierce defense of individual liberty and democracy, are characteristic of American Democratic values.
In Federalist No. 39, Alexander Hamilton countered the Federal Farmer’s claim that a strong central government would not adequately represent the people, as is necessary in a democracy. Hamilton concurs with the Federal Farmer that “It is essential to… a government that [power] be derived from the great body of society, not from… a favored class of it” (Hamilton 194). However, Hamilton differs from the Federal farmer in that he believes that the democratic republic proposed by the Constitution can in fact hold government accountable to the people. He emphasizes term limits as a means for the public to maintain control over a national government, thus safeguarding the principle of democracy.
In drafting the Constitution, the founders were informed by the examples of prior republics that existed in antiquity. The Greco-Roman republics in particular served as cautionary tales that warned of the perils of too much democracy. Alexander Hamilton mentioned in Federalist No. 9 the “sensations of horror and disgust” provoked by such governments “perpetually vibrating between the extremes of anarchy and tyranny” (Hamilton 37). In designing the Constitution, the founders were careful to avoid the democratic excesses of the Greek, Roman and other republics.
In Federalist No. 10, James Madison attributed the chronic instability of the aforementioned republics to “the violence of faction” (Madison 42). Later in the essay, he defines faction as “a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adverse to the rights of other citizens” (Madison 43). According to Madison, individuals have a tendency to split up into groups, or factions, according to their own selfish interests. This results in the introduction of “instability, injustice and confusion” into public council (Madison 42). In other words, a government, however democratic, cannot function when factionalism is permitted to fester unchecked. A democracy has the potential to devour itself if not given the means to “break and control the violence of faction” (Madison 42).
Madison claims that “pure democracy,” in which citizens gather to participate directly in the minutia of government, is insufficient to do so. He proposes that to control faction, America must adopt structuralelementsof a republic that are not necessarily present in a pure democracy. Under Madison and the Federalists’ proposed democratic republic, a “chosen body of citizens” would “refine and enlarge the public view” (Madison 46). If taken out of context, Madison’s words appear to be those of an elitist with little faith in the ability of common folk to govern. In a sense, this is the case.
Embedded in the philosophy of the founders, to a greater or lesser extent, is a bleak view of human nature. That being said, Madison’s goal in proposing a representative republic as opposed to a pure democracy was not to place power in the hands of a few, as in an oligarchy. Rather, he sought to protect the vital democratic spirit of America by ensuring that no majority faction ever finds itself in a position to “sacrifice… the rights of other citizens (Madison 44). His goal, as expressed in Federalist No. 10, is to “secure the public good, and private rights, against the danger of such a faction, and at the same time to preserve the spirit and the form of popular government” (Madison 45).
Drawing from the populist idealism of Thomas Jefferson, as expressed in the Declaration of Independence, and the principled pragmatic views of James Madison and Alexander Hamilton, as detailed in The Federalist Papers the founders fashioned a uniquely American government. The ensuing democratic republic provided the people with a safe and efficient means to make their voices heard, mitigating more effectively than any pure democracy the dangers of a majority faction encroaching on the rights of everyone else.
Bibliography
1. Dolbeare, Kenneth M., and Michael S. Cummings. American Political Thought. 6th ed. Washington D.C: CQ P, 2009
2. Jay, John, Alexander Hamilton, James Madison. The Federalist. Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, 2001. Print.
3. The Federal Farmer. “The Federal Farmer.” Letter to the Republican. May 1787
4. Storing, Herbert J. The anti-Federalist, edited, with commentary and notes, by Herbert J. Storing. Chicago: University of Chicago P, 1985