How successful was the new constitution of the United States (1789-1841)?
08/02/2006
The new Constitution of the United States, ratified in 1789 by James Madison, created a completely new democratic system within America, which had never been tried before, and up to 1841, had made significant changes amongst American society. However, despite this, it did create numerous issues about how the American political system should be run, and whether its ratification was necessary for the benefits of American politics.
The first consideration to make is the new institutions created by the Constitution. Before its adoption, America was operating under the Articles of Confederation (set up in 1777). This gave the basis for America to operate with a weak central Government, as it was a uni-cameral system. It had no rights to tax or trade, and most noticeably, gave each individual state the authority to pass its own laws and legislature. The idea of this was so individuals would not be oppressed by a ruling Government as they had been under British control, and so the American people were free to live without the worry of an “over-controlling” power. The Constitution however was a complete re-draft of this, and in most respects, a complete opposite of this, as it established a strong central Government with tax raising powers, and most importantly created new institutions, which were the Executive, Congress, and the Judiciary. The President (such as that of the 1789 election, where George Washington won the votes for the Federalists) would be the overall leader of the United States, along with the two other main institutions within Government; Congress (comprising of the Senate and the House of Representatives), and the Supreme Court.
Despite this looked a suitable form of Government, the newly formed American democracy faced one major problem from the Anti-Federalists, and that was the question of how much power should the Federal Government have over the individuals of the United States? The Anti-Federalist argument was that if this form of Government was created, where would the Government draw the line at being too powerful; limiting the people of their liberties and rights? If the Government was to become a dictatorship as it were, then the American people might as well appoint a monarchy…a monarchy which America had fought in the Revolution a few years earlier. With this argument, a conflict occurred between the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists, of which, developed into the first real stage of democratic progress, where the Bill of Rights was established in December 1791. This was passed by Congress to set out the rights of all individuals within the United States, entitling them to such natural liberties of freedom of speech, the right to bear arms, the right of prohibiting cruel and unusual punishments, e.t.c. This was a break-through for the new nation, as this prevented the Federal Government from ever becoming so powerful that they could take away their peoples natural rights and liberties, and as well as this, the form of the Government set out in the Constitution also prevented the Government from becoming to powerful. This was shown with the Judiciary Act of 1789, where the Judiciary (comprised of the Supreme Court, 3 circuit courts and 13 district courts) would nullify any state laws passed by the President/Congress which violated the Federal Constitution. Along with this, the President could also nullify laws passed by Congress, so in the long run, there was no chance of the Federal Government ever becoming to powerful as each department would be able to counter-act laws passed and “flex their muscles” as it were, preventing any chance of a dictatorship occurring within America.
In this case, it is clear that the Constitution succeeded in protecting the individual rights of the American people, and by the form of Government and the Bill of Rights, they would never have to fear Political turmoil within their nation. However, if there was a point where the Constitution didn’t succeed in legislation, it was the question of “what relationship was there between the Executive and the Legislature”? Originally, the Senate had been proposed to function as the Presidents advisory council, as the President was to appoint high officials and make treaties “by and with the advice and consent of the Senate”. But however, problems occurred with this, and a huge development within the American democratic system occurred during this time. When Washington put forward an Indian Treaty to the Senate, they refused to discuss the matter within his presence, and so, treaties were therefore to be submitted to the Senate after they had been negotiated, and not before. Now with no support from the Senate, Washington had to look elsewhere for political advice, in which he chose the founding father of the Constitution, James Madison. However, the Constitution created another problem here, as Madison became powerless when Congress passed executive departments in the autumn of 1789 (which included the State, Treasury and War departments). It became law that these departments would be responsible to the President alone, but this did develop into a problem when the executive heads evolved into their own “cabinet”, where they met regularly, cast votes on legislation and made collective decisions, which was not mentioned in the Constitution.
So despite the Constitution had set out a democratic government as shown, and was progressing this Government into passing laws through the Senate and the Supreme Court, it did fail on numerous occasions where it failed to point out the relationship between the Executive and the Legislature, and was violated by the heads of Executive departments where they collectively formed a cabinet to vote upon laws.
The second point to mention was how the Constitution allowed the creation of America’s financial economy (through tax, finance and trade), all set up by the 1789 Wartime Secretary, Alexander Hamilton.
Throughout the 1790’s, Hamilton created a financial programme which was set out in a series of reports, and recommended numerous instigations, such as funding the entire domestic and foreign debts created from the war, and funding Federal revolutionary debt also. Because the new Constitution had been adopted, America now had the right to tax individuals for the purpose of Federal Government spending, and this is what Hamilton exercised. By increasing domestic taxes, Hamilton’s vision was to wipe away the foreign debt (of $56 million), and the state revolutionary debt (of $21 million), as he claimed that this was “essential to the Governments financial standing”. However, despite the Constitution could allow this, it didn’t turn out successful in the starting run, as the new financial programme run into turmoil as soon as it set off. Hamilton’s state taxes were largely criticised by Southern states, as many of the South states had already paid their revolutionary debts, and rejected contributing to debts not owed by them, but owed by states such as Massachusetts and other states bordering the New England area. With this in mind, Madison also tried to persuade congress to reject this proposal in April 1790, but the situation was resolved by Hamilton, in saying that he would make special allowances for southern states, and create the new national capital being permanently in the South. It was inevitably agreed, and Congress passed the law in 1790.
However, despite this, Hamilton also ran into further problems created by the Constitution when he attempted to set up the first bank of the United States, with a revenue of over $10 million. It would provide the basis for Government funds, taxes, would stimulate industry and issue paper money, and all Hamilton needed to do this was for Congress to charter the bank, and make this financial idea become reality. However, as Madison pointed out, the bill raised Constitutional questions. Congress had no powers what so ever to charter new companies, and hence no such power existed under Constitutional law. With this, Washington refused to sign the bill, and the national bank appeared to never become legislation. However, by claiming that the bank was necessary to regulate currency and trade, Washington decided to pass the bill (although not convinced by his argument), and the bank of the United States was opened in Philadelphia in December 1791.
The final point to Hamilton’s financial programme was the Manufacturers report of 1791, in which he planned for industrialisation through protective tariffs, bounties and subsidies. By doing this, he would be able to bind the country together and make it self sufficient, and in the long run, able to rely solely on its domestic economy and not that of foreign imports. But problems occurred again when Hamilton exercised the taxing legislation set out in the Constitution. To fund such a heavy programme, Hamilton needed more taxes than that of import duties, and so passed a taxing law in 1791 on distilled liquor (known as the whiskey tax). This bore heavily on the American people (especially that of farmers), and in 1794, the law boiled over into armed resistance, where mobs terrorised federal agents and prevented courts from functioning properly. But despite the problem created here, the Constitution did succeed in one matter where it was justifiable that the Federal Government could create an army and use it to its own will. This is what Washington did in this situation, where he sent over 13,000 armed men into troubled areas of the uprising, which showed that the Government had the power to compel obedience to laws through the use of its militia, and exercise the US army as set out in the Constitution. However, this did create allegations to whether Washington was turning democracy into a military dictatorship, and would use this power to seize control of individual rights which would be un-constitutional. So although Hamilton passed these laws exercising the Constitutional right to taxing and releasing America from the burden of national debt, it also created problems relating to the Constitution, such as chartering the Bank of the United States and Washington instigating laws with the aid of a “military dictatorship”, which went against the writings of the US Constitution.
But apart from these issues, Hamilton’s programme did benefit the United States economy in the long run. Because of his financial knowledge and legislation, the country endured mass growth and boom from when the new orders were set up. Exports increased from $20 million in 1790 to $61 million in 1811, as well as imports increasing from $23 million in 1790 to $53 million in 1811, and the New York Stock Exchange was set up in 1792, all because the Constitution made this possible. So in the long run, the Constitution did benefit the US economy greatly, and proved a success with the Federal Government.
Finally, despite the American democracy progressed throughout the 1790’s & the 1800’s (such as passing an embargo act while Europe was at war), it also endured much debate and change from the General Election of 1800 onwards. At this point, Thomas Jefferson took over the Presidency, and had a completely different view to that of Hamilton’s. He wanted America to be a more “peaceful nation”, largely dominated by an agricultural economy, and contrasting to that of Hamilton’s “Capitalism” ideas. He also felt strongly against the Judiciary, as his view of the Supreme Court was “undemocratic”, as it had un-elected judges appointed for life, and was largely Federalist dominated. With this, he wanted to repeal the Judiciary Act of 1801, and appointed 3 new Supreme Court Justices in this time, of which (under John Marshall), led to the Marbury vs. Madison case of 1803. This became a key development for Constitutional America, as Marbury had been named a justice of the peace in Columbia district. However, Madison declined to certify this, so the President could appoint a Democratic Republican instead, which inevitably led to Marbury suing, requesting that the Court should force the President to appoint him. However, this led to a political dilemma, as if the Supreme Court voted in favour of Marbury, the President would not agree to his appointment, and the Court had no way of forcing him to (as it was unconstitutional), but if they voted against Marbury, they would be handing the Democratic Republicans a victory, which in no way did they want. The matter was only resolved by John Marshall, claiming that Marbury was entitles to his appointment, but Madison “did not have to honour this”, and that the Courts passing Mandamus’s was unconstitutional.
So with this, although a political dilemma occurred, there was inevitably a complete progress of the Constitution, as even though the Supreme Court denied itself the power to issue Mandamus’s, it established itself as a far greater power to judge the Constitutionality of laws passed by Congress.
The final point of American democracy that was influenced by the Constitution was the Growth aspect from the 1800’s onwards, which would not have been possible without the Constitutions adoption. In 1803 when the Louisiana purchase was made, the land area of the US doubled in size, along with the population increasing by 10.6 million from 1820-1840 (89% of this was from natural growth and excluding immigration). Because of this, the United States expanded from the take over of Indiana (1816), Mississippi (1817), Illinois in 1818, Alabama (1819), Maine (1820), and Missouri in 1821, along with future adoptions of Arkansas in 1836 and Michigan state in 1837. However, all of this was only possible from the influence of Indian removal, which was established indirectly from the Constitution.
From the Constitution, the United States “acknowledged Indian distinctiveness by recognising Indian sovereignty”, and gave the Federal Government responsibility for dealing with native Americans. This was precisely what the Federal Government did, but in effect, abused this Constitutional power by using treaty making as a tactic to acquire Indian land (such as that mentioned). By the 1840’s, Indian tribes had given up over 200 million acres of their ancestral land because of Federal pressure, because of such regulations passed in 1824 by James Monroe, suggesting that all Indians should be moved beyond the Mississippi river. In addition to this, by Constitutionally leaving the Indians at the hands of the Federal Government, the Creeks ceded under Federal pressure in 1826, along with the mass “trail of tears” march by 20,000 Cherokees from their land in 1838-1839, being forced to move to present day Alabama (of which, nearly 5,000 died on the route there).
Despite the harshness of this Government legislation, it did none the less prove the Constitution a success as America acquired vast acres of land, which allowed the population to increase dramatically, and lead the country abiding by the Constitution it adopted in 1789. In conclusion, although the Constitution did have many hindrances with its adoption, it did (in the long run) prove to be a success (included with Hamilton’s financial planning, and the overall progress of the American democracy), and in doing so, allowed the United States to endure many benefits with its progressing government, its expansion of land, and its economic growth during the period 1789-1841.
The new Constitution of the United States, ratified in 1789 by James Madison, created a completely new democratic system within America, which had never been tried before, and up to 1841, had made significant changes amongst American society. However, despite this, it did create numerous issues about how the American political system should be run, and whether its ratification was necessary for the benefits of American politics.
The first consideration to make is the new institutions created by the Constitution. Before its adoption, America was operating under the Articles of Confederation (set up in 1777). This gave the basis for America to operate with a weak central Government, as it was a uni-cameral system. It had no rights to tax or trade, and most noticeably, gave each individual state the authority to pass its own laws and legislature. The idea of this was so individuals would not be oppressed by a ruling Government as they had been under British control, and so the American people were free to live without the worry of an “over-controlling” power. The Constitution however was a complete re-draft of this, and in most respects, a complete opposite of this, as it established a strong central Government with tax raising powers, and most importantly created new institutions, which were the Executive, Congress, and the Judiciary. The President (such as that of the 1789 election, where George Washington won the votes for the Federalists) would be the overall leader of the United States, along with the two other main institutions within Government; Congress (comprising of the Senate and the House of Representatives), and the Supreme Court.
Despite this looked a suitable form of Government, the newly formed American democracy faced one major problem from the Anti-Federalists, and that was the question of how much power should the Federal Government have over the individuals of the United States? The Anti-Federalist argument was that if this form of Government was created, where would the Government draw the line at being too powerful; limiting the people of their liberties and rights? If the Government was to become a dictatorship as it were, then the American people might as well appoint a monarchy…a monarchy which America had fought in the Revolution a few years earlier. With this argument, a conflict occurred between the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists, of which, developed into the first real stage of democratic progress, where the Bill of Rights was established in December 1791. This was passed by Congress to set out the rights of all individuals within the United States, entitling them to such natural liberties of freedom of speech, the right to bear arms, the right of prohibiting cruel and unusual punishments, e.t.c. This was a break-through for the new nation, as this prevented the Federal Government from ever becoming so powerful that they could take away their peoples natural rights and liberties, and as well as this, the form of the Government set out in the Constitution also prevented the Government from becoming to powerful. This was shown with the Judiciary Act of 1789, where the Judiciary (comprised of the Supreme Court, 3 circuit courts and 13 district courts) would nullify any state laws passed by the President/Congress which violated the Federal Constitution. Along with this, the President could also nullify laws passed by Congress, so in the long run, there was no chance of the Federal Government ever becoming to powerful as each department would be able to counter-act laws passed and “flex their muscles” as it were, preventing any chance of a dictatorship occurring within America.
In this case, it is clear that the Constitution succeeded in protecting the individual rights of the American people, and by the form of Government and the Bill of Rights, they would never have to fear Political turmoil within their nation. However, if there was a point where the Constitution didn’t succeed in legislation, it was the question of “what relationship was there between the Executive and the Legislature”? Originally, the Senate had been proposed to function as the Presidents advisory council, as the President was to appoint high officials and make treaties “by and with the advice and consent of the Senate”. But however, problems occurred with this, and a huge development within the American democratic system occurred during this time. When Washington put forward an Indian Treaty to the Senate, they refused to discuss the matter within his presence, and so, treaties were therefore to be submitted to the Senate after they had been negotiated, and not before. Now with no support from the Senate, Washington had to look elsewhere for political advice, in which he chose the founding father of the Constitution, James Madison. However, the Constitution created another problem here, as Madison became powerless when Congress passed executive departments in the autumn of 1789 (which included the State, Treasury and War departments). It became law that these departments would be responsible to the President alone, but this did develop into a problem when the executive heads evolved into their own “cabinet”, where they met regularly, cast votes on legislation and made collective decisions, which was not mentioned in the Constitution.
So despite the Constitution had set out a democratic government as shown, and was progressing this Government into passing laws through the Senate and the Supreme Court, it did fail on numerous occasions where it failed to point out the relationship between the Executive and the Legislature, and was violated by the heads of Executive departments where they collectively formed a cabinet to vote upon laws.
The second point to mention was how the Constitution allowed the creation of America’s financial economy (through tax, finance and trade), all set up by the 1789 Wartime Secretary, Alexander Hamilton.
Throughout the 1790’s, Hamilton created a financial programme which was set out in a series of reports, and recommended numerous instigations, such as funding the entire domestic and foreign debts created from the war, and funding Federal revolutionary debt also. Because the new Constitution had been adopted, America now had the right to tax individuals for the purpose of Federal Government spending, and this is what Hamilton exercised. By increasing domestic taxes, Hamilton’s vision was to wipe away the foreign debt (of $56 million), and the state revolutionary debt (of $21 million), as he claimed that this was “essential to the Governments financial standing”. However, despite the Constitution could allow this, it didn’t turn out successful in the starting run, as the new financial programme run into turmoil as soon as it set off. Hamilton’s state taxes were largely criticised by Southern states, as many of the South states had already paid their revolutionary debts, and rejected contributing to debts not owed by them, but owed by states such as Massachusetts and other states bordering the New England area. With this in mind, Madison also tried to persuade congress to reject this proposal in April 1790, but the situation was resolved by Hamilton, in saying that he would make special allowances for southern states, and create the new national capital being permanently in the South. It was inevitably agreed, and Congress passed the law in 1790.
However, despite this, Hamilton also ran into further problems created by the Constitution when he attempted to set up the first bank of the United States, with a revenue of over $10 million. It would provide the basis for Government funds, taxes, would stimulate industry and issue paper money, and all Hamilton needed to do this was for Congress to charter the bank, and make this financial idea become reality. However, as Madison pointed out, the bill raised Constitutional questions. Congress had no powers what so ever to charter new companies, and hence no such power existed under Constitutional law. With this, Washington refused to sign the bill, and the national bank appeared to never become legislation. However, by claiming that the bank was necessary to regulate currency and trade, Washington decided to pass the bill (although not convinced by his argument), and the bank of the United States was opened in Philadelphia in December 1791.
The final point to Hamilton’s financial programme was the Manufacturers report of 1791, in which he planned for industrialisation through protective tariffs, bounties and subsidies. By doing this, he would be able to bind the country together and make it self sufficient, and in the long run, able to rely solely on its domestic economy and not that of foreign imports. But problems occurred again when Hamilton exercised the taxing legislation set out in the Constitution. To fund such a heavy programme, Hamilton needed more taxes than that of import duties, and so passed a taxing law in 1791 on distilled liquor (known as the whiskey tax). This bore heavily on the American people (especially that of farmers), and in 1794, the law boiled over into armed resistance, where mobs terrorised federal agents and prevented courts from functioning properly. But despite the problem created here, the Constitution did succeed in one matter where it was justifiable that the Federal Government could create an army and use it to its own will. This is what Washington did in this situation, where he sent over 13,000 armed men into troubled areas of the uprising, which showed that the Government had the power to compel obedience to laws through the use of its militia, and exercise the US army as set out in the Constitution. However, this did create allegations to whether Washington was turning democracy into a military dictatorship, and would use this power to seize control of individual rights which would be un-constitutional. So although Hamilton passed these laws exercising the Constitutional right to taxing and releasing America from the burden of national debt, it also created problems relating to the Constitution, such as chartering the Bank of the United States and Washington instigating laws with the aid of a “military dictatorship”, which went against the writings of the US Constitution.
But apart from these issues, Hamilton’s programme did benefit the United States economy in the long run. Because of his financial knowledge and legislation, the country endured mass growth and boom from when the new orders were set up. Exports increased from $20 million in 1790 to $61 million in 1811, as well as imports increasing from $23 million in 1790 to $53 million in 1811, and the New York Stock Exchange was set up in 1792, all because the Constitution made this possible. So in the long run, the Constitution did benefit the US economy greatly, and proved a success with the Federal Government.
Finally, despite the American democracy progressed throughout the 1790’s & the 1800’s (such as passing an embargo act while Europe was at war), it also endured much debate and change from the General Election of 1800 onwards. At this point, Thomas Jefferson took over the Presidency, and had a completely different view to that of Hamilton’s. He wanted America to be a more “peaceful nation”, largely dominated by an agricultural economy, and contrasting to that of Hamilton’s “Capitalism” ideas. He also felt strongly against the Judiciary, as his view of the Supreme Court was “undemocratic”, as it had un-elected judges appointed for life, and was largely Federalist dominated. With this, he wanted to repeal the Judiciary Act of 1801, and appointed 3 new Supreme Court Justices in this time, of which (under John Marshall), led to the Marbury vs. Madison case of 1803. This became a key development for Constitutional America, as Marbury had been named a justice of the peace in Columbia district. However, Madison declined to certify this, so the President could appoint a Democratic Republican instead, which inevitably led to Marbury suing, requesting that the Court should force the President to appoint him. However, this led to a political dilemma, as if the Supreme Court voted in favour of Marbury, the President would not agree to his appointment, and the Court had no way of forcing him to (as it was unconstitutional), but if they voted against Marbury, they would be handing the Democratic Republicans a victory, which in no way did they want. The matter was only resolved by John Marshall, claiming that Marbury was entitles to his appointment, but Madison “did not have to honour this”, and that the Courts passing Mandamus’s was unconstitutional.
So with this, although a political dilemma occurred, there was inevitably a complete progress of the Constitution, as even though the Supreme Court denied itself the power to issue Mandamus’s, it established itself as a far greater power to judge the Constitutionality of laws passed by Congress.
The final point of American democracy that was influenced by the Constitution was the Growth aspect from the 1800’s onwards, which would not have been possible without the Constitutions adoption. In 1803 when the Louisiana purchase was made, the land area of the US doubled in size, along with the population increasing by 10.6 million from 1820-1840 (89% of this was from natural growth and excluding immigration). Because of this, the United States expanded from the take over of Indiana (1816), Mississippi (1817), Illinois in 1818, Alabama (1819), Maine (1820), and Missouri in 1821, along with future adoptions of Arkansas in 1836 and Michigan state in 1837. However, all of this was only possible from the influence of Indian removal, which was established indirectly from the Constitution.
From the Constitution, the United States “acknowledged Indian distinctiveness by recognising Indian sovereignty”, and gave the Federal Government responsibility for dealing with native Americans. This was precisely what the Federal Government did, but in effect, abused this Constitutional power by using treaty making as a tactic to acquire Indian land (such as that mentioned). By the 1840’s, Indian tribes had given up over 200 million acres of their ancestral land because of Federal pressure, because of such regulations passed in 1824 by James Monroe, suggesting that all Indians should be moved beyond the Mississippi river. In addition to this, by Constitutionally leaving the Indians at the hands of the Federal Government, the Creeks ceded under Federal pressure in 1826, along with the mass “trail of tears” march by 20,000 Cherokees from their land in 1838-1839, being forced to move to present day Alabama (of which, nearly 5,000 died on the route there).
Despite the harshness of this Government legislation, it did none the less prove the Constitution a success as America acquired vast acres of land, which allowed the population to increase dramatically, and lead the country abiding by the Constitution it adopted in 1789. In conclusion, although the Constitution did have many hindrances with its adoption, it did (in the long run) prove to be a success (included with Hamilton’s financial planning, and the overall progress of the American democracy), and in doing so, allowed the United States to endure many benefits with its progressing government, its expansion of land, and its economic growth during the period 1789-1841.
posted by James.R.Skinner at 2:36 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home