Our present
constitution is an experiment. Our previous governing document, the
Articles of Confederation was seen as a failure because it had severe
and incurable problems. The Articles created a loosely allied group
of states. There was no central authority, no president, and no way
to resolve disputes between the states. The Articles led to trade and
taxation disputes between the states and outbreaks of violence.
A group of
citizens led by Daniel Shays took up arms against the government of
Massachusetts. The federal government lacked the military power to
put down the insurrection, so the state's wealthier citizens formed a
private militia to do the job. The state government easily suppressed
the rebellion, which had been inspired by taxation and austerity
policies. Washington considered the rebellion an awful presage of
things to come, but was happy that the state had been able to control
it so quickly.
Shays's Rebellion
had at its root the difference between the well-off and the poor. At
that time, the currency was worthless and the small farmers in rural
Massachusetts had nothing with which to pay taxes. They had to watch
as banks foreclosed on their property. They also resented the money
from taxes being transferred to wealthy financiers. Massachusetts
resolved the problem by discounting its debt.
Jefferson, with
his typical laissez-faire philosophy, considered Shays's Rebellion a
good thing, a means to water the tree of liberty with the blood of
tyrants. George Washington and James Madison considered the uprising
a sign that a stronger central government was needed, one that had
the ability to raise revenues and support a professional army. They
took steps in the new Constitution to strengthen the federal
government and to increase its ability to levy taxes and maintain a
standing army.
The adoption of a
new Constitution did not prevent armed uprisings, however. The
Whiskey Rebellion was a revolt against excise taxes proposed by
Alexander Hamilton, the first Treasury Secretary under President
Washington. Once again poor farmers revolted against paying taxes
when they had no paper money, only produce. Washington led a sizable
militia force into western Pennsylvania to put down the revolt. The
revolt evaporated before any military engagements occurred.
Fries's Uprising
in 1799 was caused once again by taxation issues. The poor farmers
of western Pennsylvania objected to the imposition of a property tax.
Farmers in slave states could apply this tax to their slaves. Slaves
could be sold to get cash, but property could not. While the newly
strengthened federal government was able to suppress the
insurrection, President John Adams drew criticism for his handling of
the crisis, while Albert Gallatin, by acting as a calming force, gained prominence among the
anti-federalists.
All three of these
rebellions were popular uprisings against the wealthy financiers who
held war-debt from the revolutionary war. Hamilton's excise taxes
transferred money from the poor farmers in the west to the wealthy
bankers in the east. Madison referred to these uprisings as excesses
of democracy. He and his allies designed the Constitution to assure
that the faction of the majority (I.e., the poor) could not dominate
the faction of the minority (I.e., the wealthy).
The Constitution
protects the wealthy minority from the poor majority by a system of
checks and balances. The Framers explained these features as intended
to prevent tyranny or anarchy. John Adams gives the Long Parliament
as an example of a single-house legislature that led to tyranny.
While John Adams was a well-read, well-traveled man, his conclusions
do not take into account changing times and circumstances. The Long
Parliament may have led to tyranny, but it started out as a reaction
to tyranny of the British king. It failed to hold regular elections,
which Thomas Paine suggests as a counterweight to tyranny. Adams
discounts this argument entirely. Yet we know today that there are
many single-house legislatures that have not devolved into tyranny or
anarchy, the British House of Commons foremost among them. Whatever
arguments may have been accepted at the time of the framing have now
been refuted by subsequent events.
The British
Parliament found a way to neutralize its obstructive House of Lords
because it has no written constitution and hence has more freedom to
change its customs to respond to changing circumstances. The American
Constitution has no such ability. In evolutionary terms, the American
Constitution has proven itself unable to evolve and has set itself on
the path to extinction.
No comments:
Post a Comment