Birth of a Nation

Sunday marks the 245^th year since the United States declared independence from Great Britain. There is a lot of discussion these days about the motives and morals behind some of the folks involved in those historical events. I am certainly not equipped and have no desire to take on that debate!

What I will assert is that the signers of the Declaration of Independence and the authors of our constitution were incredibly intelligent and visionary leaders. Many of us forget that although the United States declared independence in 1776 and fought nearly an eight year war, it wasn’t until 1788 that the newly formed nation ratified a constitution.

Some may also have forgotten that there was quite the debate in the years leading up to the ratification. Generally speaking, there were two schools of thought on governance amongst the political leaders and pundits of the time.

Federalists such as Alexander Hamilton and James Madison advocated for a constitutional republic with three well-defined branches of federal government to serve as checks and balances to power. The anti-federalists led by Patrick Henry felt the constitution as drafted gave too much power to the federal government and that individual liberties were at risk.

Interestingly, this debate played itself out over the course of five plus years in the media. Sound familiar? Each side of the debate published papers or essays in newspapers and journals attempting to garner support from the populace and their representatives.

In the end, the Federalist styled Constitution was ratified by nine states making it the law of the land. But in 1791 the Bill of Rights was introduced as a compromise to the anti-federalist.

And therein lies the testament to our founding fathers leadership. Compromise. While the debate was no doubt ugly at times, two sides came together and built a constitution and Bill of Rights that has guided us for over 200 years. Compromise is something we could definitely use more of these days.

Forming the U.S. constitution makes for an interesting case study in politics for many of our nation’s best leadership schools. One of those schools is the National War College. The following paragraphs are an excerpt from a short writing assignment I completed while a student there. The task was to identify the key points of two Anti-Federalist papers and their relationship to the constitution.  

The 1780s marked a period of tremendous political and economic instability for America.  Domestically, inflation ran rampant as the States continued to print paper money.  State legislatures became self-interested with a “spirit of locality” and were passing numerous questionable laws. 

Many state legislators were not prepared to become lawmakers and were limited to only one term creating a lack of continuity in governance. Economically, American exports were steadily declining while imports began to increase. 

Many European nations chose not to do business with a loose confederation of states seemingly incapable of properly regulating commerce.  Border disputes with Spain and Great Britain continued with no consolidated American response. 

In the summer of 1787 fifty five state delegates of political elite assembled in Philadelphia to revise the Articles of Confederation.  By the fall of 1787 it was apparent that James Madison and others assembled in Philadelphia were not simply revising the Articles but developing a completely new Constitution that would establish a considerably stronger federal government.   

“John DeWitt” is a pseudonym for an anonymous Massachusetts anti-federalist who published a series of five articles that appeared in the Boston American Herald in the fall of 1787.  John DeWitt was a seventeenth century Dutch patriot who had defended the liberties of the people against an oppressive central government.

 “John DeWitt I” introduces the author’s opposition to what he perceives as rushing towards establishing a new government without a thorough consideration of the consequences.    He begins by establishing that the American experience has thus far proved very successful and acclaimed across the World. 

Throughout the paper he asserts the success and importance of an American “union” going so far as to state that “in a Federal Union lies our political salvation.”  However he continues to reiterate his theme that the current Philadelphia convention is undertaking this hastily without a proper national debate from many perspectives warning that it is “much easier to dispense powers, then recall them.” 

This conveys a central ideal of the anti-federalist that the varying interests of a diverse populace must be adequately addressed in government and that a strong central sovereign government will inevitably deprive the population of individual rights. 

“John DeWitt II” expounds on the authors central concerns by offering specific arguments against the proposed constitution.  He argues that amending the constitution with the requirement of a three fourths ratification by state legislatures will be near impossible due to the wide range of interests across the states and that the interests of less populous / powerful states will inevitably be ignored. 

Additionally, he questions the omission of term limits, fearing that states will be permanently governed by out of touch legislators “four thousand miles” away drawing similarities to the relationship the colonies maintained with England.   

He further questions the powers given to the federal government in the new constitution stating that Congress’ ability to establish laws, levy taxes, and raise the militia gives them the powers of “legislation, judgment, and execution.” 

Likewise, he argues the Supreme Court’s ability to hear almost any case creates the possibility that a judicial matter could be settled far away from a local jury of peers.  The author’s most compelling argument in “DeWitt II” is his observation that the constitution gives broad powers to a federal government yet does not contain a “Bill of Rights” to protect the freedoms of the individual.  

In “DeWitt II” we see many arguments that fundamentally shaped American government and surface later via amendments to the 1789 Constitution.  While the debate on Congressional term limits continues today, term limits for the office of President were unofficially established as early as George Washington’s presidency and then ratified in the 22nd Amendment. 

Most notably, the author’s advocating for the inclusion of a Bill of Rights was a common argument of the time and the first ten amendments were ratified in 1791 just two years after the original constitution.

It’s always amazed me how some of the same themes contested in the 1780s are still topics of debate today. Perhaps, coming together despite these core differences are what it truly means to be American. I just hope our leaders today can be as effective as our founding fathers in fostering compromise. Happy birthday U.S.A.!

Next week I’ll stay on a “Leading” theme with a look at some national defense strategery!  

The views, opinions and biases expressed in this blog are the authors and do not reflect those of the Department of Defense.

Use the links in the about section below to follow on social media or subscribe for emails to receive updates on the latest weekly blog at www.normspivey.com!

Interested in personal finance? How about learning what it takes, at least academically, to serve as a leader in the military? Check out my books on sale now at Amazon!