What were the circumstances that led to Shays’ Rebellion? What was the government’s response? Would this response have confirmed or negated the grievances of the participants in the uprising? Why?
ConnorGL
7.pdf
Chapter 7 | Creating Republican Governments, 1776–1790
183
CHAPTER 7
Creating Republican Governments,
1776–1790
Figure 7.1 John Trumbull, Washington’s aide-de-camp, painted this wartime image of
Washington on a promontory
above the Hudson River. Just behind Washington, his slave William “Billy” Lee has
his eyes firmly fixed on his master.
In the far background, British warships fire on an American fort.
Chapter Outline
7.1 Common Sense: From Monarchy to an American Republic
7.2 How Much Revolutionary Change?
7.3 Debating Democracy
7.4 The Constitutional Convention and Federal Constitution
Introduction
After the Revolutionary War, the ideology that “all men are created equal” failed
to match up with
reality, as the revolutionary generation could not solve the contradictions of
freedom and slavery in the
new United States. Trumbull’s 1780 painting of George Washington (Figure 7.1) hints
at some of these
contradictions. What attitude do you think Trumbull was trying to convey? Why did
Trumbull include
Washington’s slave Billy Lee, and what does Lee represent in this painting?
During the 1770s and 1780s, Americans took bold steps to define American equality.
Each state held
constitutional conventions and crafted state constitutions that defined how
government would operate
and who could participate in political life. Many elite revolutionaries recoiled in
horror from the idea of
majority rule—the basic principle of democracy—fearing that it would effectively
create a “mob rule” that
would bring about the ruin of the hard-fought struggle for independence. Statesmen
everywhere believed
that a republic should replace the British monarchy: a government where the
important affairs would be
entrusted only to representative men of learning and refinement.
184
Chapter 7 | Creating Republican Governments, 1776–1790
7.1 Common Sense: From Monarchy to an American Republic
By the end of this section, you will be able to:
• Compare and contrast monarchy and republican government
• Describe the tenets of republicanism
While monarchies dominated eighteenth-century Europe, American revolutionaries were
determined to
find an alternative to this method of government. Radical pamphleteer Thomas Paine,
whose enormously
popular essay Common Sense was first published in January 1776, advocated a
republic: a state without a
king. Six months later, Jefferson’s Declaration of Independence affirmed the break
with England but did
not suggest what form of government should replace monarchy, the only system most
English colonists
had ever known. In the late eighteenth century, republics were few and far between.
Genoa, Venice, and
the Dutch Republic provided examples of states without monarchs, but many European
Enlightenment
thinkers questioned the stability of a republic. Nonetheless, after their break
from Great Britain, Americans
turned to republicanism for their new government.
REPUBLICANISM AS A POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY
Monarchy rests on the practice of dynastic succession, in which the monarch’s child
or other relative
inherits the throne. Contested dynastic succession produced chronic conflict and
warfare in Europe. In
the eighteenth century, well-established monarchs ruled most of Europe and,
according to tradition,
were obligated to protect and guide their subjects. However, by the mid-1770s, many
American colonists
believed that George III, the king of Great Britain, had failed to do so. Patriots
believed the British
monarchy under George III had been corrupted and the king turned into a tyrant who
cared nothing
for the traditional liberties afforded to members of the British Empire. The
disaffection from monarchy
explains why a republic appeared a better alternative to the revolutionaries.
American revolutionaries looked to the past for inspiration for their break with
the British monarchy and
Figure 7.2
This OpenStax book is available for free at https://cnx.org/content/col11740/1.3
Chapter 7 | Creating Republican Governments, 1776–1790
185
their adoption of a republican form of government. The Roman Republic provided
guidance. Much like
the Americans in their struggle against Britain, Romans had thrown off monarchy and
created a republic
in which Roman citizens would appoint or select the leaders who would represent
them.
Click and Explore
Visit the Metropolitan Museum of Art
(http://openstaxcollege.org/l/ceracchi) to see
a Roman-style bust of George Washington, complete with
toga. In 1791, Italian
sculptor Giuseppe Ceracchi visited Philadelphia, hoping
the government might
commission a monument of his creation. He did not succeed,
but the bust of
Washington, one of the ones he produced to demonstrate his
skill, illustrates the
connection between the American and Roman republics that revolutionaries made.
While republicanism offered an alternative to monarchy, it was also an alternative
to democracy, a system
of government characterized by majority rule, where the majority of citizens have
the power to make
decisions binding upon the whole. To many revolutionaries, especially wealthy
landowners, merchants,
and planters, democracy did not offer a good replacement for monarchy. Indeed,
conservative Whigs
defined themselves in opposition to democracy, which they equated with anarchy. In
the tenth in a series
of essays later known as The Federalist Papers, Virginian James Madison wrote:
“Democracies have ever
been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible
with personal security
or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they
have been violent in their
deaths.” Many shared this perspective and worked hard to keep democratic tendencies
in check. It is easy
to understand why democracy seemed threatening: majority rule can easily overpower
minority rights,
and the wealthy few had reason to fear that a hostile and envious majority could
seize and redistribute
their wealth.
While many now assume the United States was founded as a democracy, history, as
always, is more
complicated. Conservative Whigs believed in government by a patrician class, a
ruling group composed
of a small number of privileged families. Radical Whigs favored broadening the
popular participation in
political life and pushed for democracy. The great debate after independence was
secured centered on this
question: Who should rule in the new American republic?
REPUBLICANISM AS A SOCIAL PHILOSOPHY
According to political theory, a republic requires its citizens to cultivate
virtuous behavior; if the people
are virtuous, the republic will survive. If the people become corrupt, the republic
will fall. Whether
republicanism succeeded or failed in the United States would depend on civic virtue
and an educated
citizenry. Revolutionary leaders agreed that the ownership of property provided one
way to measure an
individual’s virtue, arguing that property holders had the greatest stake in
society and therefore could
be trusted to make decisions for it. By the same token, non-property holders, they
believed, should have
very little to do with government. In other words, unlike a democracy, in which the
mass of non-property
holders could exercise the political right to vote, a republic would limit
political rights to property holders.
In this way, republicanism exhibited a bias toward the elite, a preference that is
understandable given
the colonial legacy. During colonial times, wealthy planters and merchants in the
American colonies had
looked to the British ruling class, whose social order demanded deference from
those of lower rank, as a
model of behavior. Old habits died hard.
186
Chapter 7 | Creating Republican Governments, 1776–1790
DEFINING "AMERICAN"
Benjamin Franklin’s Thirteen Virtues for Character
Development
In the 1780s, Benjamin Franklin carefully defined thirteen virtues to
help guide his countrymen in
maintaining a virtuous republic. His choice of thirteen is telling
since he wrote for the citizens of the
thirteen new American republics. These virtues were:
1. Temperance. Eat not to dullness; drink not to elevation.
2. Silence. Speak not but what may benefit others or yourself;
avoid trifling conversation.
3. Order. Let all your things have their places; let each part
of your business have its time.
4. Resolution. Resolve to perform what you ought; perform
without fail what you resolve.
5. Frugality. Make no expense but to do good to others or
yourself; i.e., waste nothing.
6. Industry. Lose no time; be always employ’d in something
useful; cut off all unnecessary
actions.
7. Sincerity. Use no hurtful deceit; think innocently and
justly, and, if you speak, speak
accordingly.
8. Justice. Wrong none by doing injuries, or omitting the
benefits that are your duty.
9. Moderation. Avoid extremes; forbear resenting injuries so
much as you think they deserve.
10. Cleanliness. Tolerate no uncleanliness in body, cloaths, or
habitation.
11. Tranquillity. Be not disturbed at trifles, or at accidents
common or unavoidable.
12. Chastity. Rarely use venery but for health or offspring,
never to dullness, weakness, or the
injury of your own or another’s peace or reputation.
13. Humility. Imitate Jesus and Socrates.
Franklin’s thirteen virtues suggest that hard work and good behavior
will bring success. What factors
does Franklin ignore? How would he likely address a situation in which
children inherit great wealth rather
than working for it? How do Franklin’s values help to define the notion
of republican virtue?
Click and Explore
Check how well you are demonstrating all thirteen
of Franklin’s virtues
(http://openstaxcollege.org/l/13virtues) on
thirteenvirtues.com, where you can
register to track your progress.
George Washington served as a role model par excellence for the new republic,
embodying the exceptional
talent and public virtue prized under the political and social philosophy of
republicanism. He did not seek
to become the new king of America; instead he retired as commander in chief of the
Continental Army and
returned to his Virginia estate at Mount Vernon to resume his life among the
planter elite. Washington
modeled his behavior on that of the Roman aristocrat Cincinnatus, a representative
of the patrician or
ruling class, who had also retired from public service in the Roman Republic and
returned to his estate to
pursue agricultural life.
The aristocratic side of republicanism—and the belief that the true custodians of
public virtue were those
who had served in the military—found expression in the Society of the Cincinnati,
of which Washington
was the first president general (Figure 7.3). Founded in 1783, the society admitted
only officers of the
Continental Army and the French forces, not militia members or minutemen. Following
the rule of
This OpenStax book is available for free at https://cnx.org/content/col11740/1.3
Chapter 7 | Creating Republican Governments, 1776–1790
187
primogeniture, the eldest sons of members inherited their fathers’ memberships. The
society still exists
today and retains the motto Omnia relinquit servare rempublicam (“He relinquished
everything to save the
Republic”).
Figure 7.3 This membership certificate for the Society of the Cincinnati
commemorates “the great Event which gave
Independence to North America.”
7.2 How Much Revolutionary Change?
By the end of this section, you will be able to:
• Describe the status of women in the new republic
• Describe the status of nonwhites in the new republic
Elite republican revolutionaries did not envision a completely new society;
traditional ideas and categories
of race and gender, order and decorum remained firmly entrenched among members of
their privileged
class. Many Americans rejected the elitist and aristocratic republican order,
however, and advocated
radical changes. Their efforts represented a groundswell of sentiment for greater
equality, a part of the
democratic impulse unleashed by the Revolution.
THE STATUS OF WOMEN
In eighteenth-century America, as in Great Britain, the legal status of married
women was defined as
coverture, meaning a married woman (or feme covert) had no legal or economic status
independent of her
husband. She could not conduct business or buy and sell property. Her husband
controlled any property
she brought to the marriage, although he could not sell it without her agreement.
Married women’s status
as femes covert did not change as a result of the Revolution, and wives remained
economically dependent
on their husbands. The women of the newly independent nation did not call for the
right to vote, but some,
especially the wives of elite republican statesmen, began to agitate for equality
under the law between
husbands and wives, and for the same educational opportunities as men.
Some women hoped to overturn coverture. From her home in Braintree, Massachusetts,
Abigail Adams
(Figure 7.4) wrote to her husband, Whig leader John Adams, in 1776, “In the new
code of laws which
I suppose it will be necessary for you to make, I desire you would remember the
ladies and be more
generous and favorable to them than your ancestor. Do not put such unlimited power
in the husbands.
Remember, all men would be tyrants if they could.” Abigail Adams ran the family
homestead during the
Revolution, but she did not have the ability to conduct business without her
husband’s consent. Elsewhere
in the famous 1776 letter quoted above, she speaks of the difficulties of running
the homestead when her
188
Chapter 7 | Creating Republican Governments, 1776–1790
husband is away. Her frustration grew when her husband responded in an April 1776
letter: “As to your
extraordinary Code of Laws, I cannot but laugh. We have been told that our Struggle
has loosened the
bands of Government every where. That Children and Apprentices were disobedient—
that schools and
Colledges were grown turbulent—that Indians slighted their Guardians and Negroes
grew insolent to
their Masters. But your Letter was the first Intimation that another Tribe more
numerous and powerfull
than all the rest were grown discontented. . . . Depend on it, We know better than
to repeal our Masculine
systems.”
Figure 7.4 Abigail Adams (a), shown here in a 1766 portrait by Benjamin Blythe, is
best remembered for her
eloquent letters to her husband, John Adams (b), who would later become the second
president of the United States.
Another privileged member of the revolutionary generation, Mercy Otis Warren, also
challenged gender
assumptions and traditions during the revolutionary era (Figure 7.5). Born in
Massachusetts, Warren
actively opposed British reform measures before the outbreak of fighting in 1775 by
publishing anti-British
works. In 1812, she published a three-volume history of the Revolution, a project
she had started in the
late 1770s. By publishing her work, Warren stepped out of the female sphere and
into the otherwise male-
dominated sphere of public life.
Inspired by the Revolution, Judith Sargent Murray of Massachusetts advocated
women’s economic
independence and equal educational opportunities for men and women (Figure 7.5).
Murray, who came
from a well-to-do family in Gloucester, questioned why boys were given access to
education as a birthright
while girls had very limited educational opportunities. She began to publish her
ideas about educational
equality beginning in the 1780s, arguing that God had made the minds of women and
men equal.
This OpenStax book is available for free at https://cnx.org/content/col11740/1.3
Chapter 7 | Creating Republican Governments, 1776–1790
189
Figure 7.5 John Singleton Copley’s 1772 portrait of Judith Sargent Murray (a) and
1763 portrait of Mercy Otis
Warren (b) show two of America’s earliest advocates for women’s rights. Notice how
their fine silk dresses telegraph
their privileged social status.
Murray’s more radical ideas championed woman’s economic independence. She argued
that a woman’s
education should be extensive enough to allow her to maintain herself—and her
family—if there was no
male breadwinner. Indeed, Murray was able to make money of her own from her
publications. Her ideas
were both radical and traditional, however: Murray also believed that women were
much better at raising
children and maintaining the morality and virtue of the family than men.
Adams, Murray, and Warren all came from privileged backgrounds. All three were
fully literate, while
many women in the American republic were not. Their literacy and station allowed
them to push for
new roles for women in the atmosphere of unique possibility created by the
Revolution and its promise
of change. Female authors who published their work provide evidence of how women in
the era of the
American Revolution challenged traditional gender roles.
Overall, the Revolution reconfigured women’s roles by undermining the traditional
expectations of wives
and mothers, including subservience. In the home, the separate domestic sphere
assigned to women,
women were expected to practice republican virtues, especially frugality and
simplicity. Republican
motherhood meant that women, more than men, were responsible for raising good
children, instilling
in them all the virtue necessary to ensure the survival of the republic. The
Revolution also opened new
doors to educational opportunities for women. Men understood that the republic
needed women to play a
substantial role in upholding republicanism and ensuring the survival of the new
nation. Benjamin Rush, a
Whig educator and physician from Philadelphia, strongly advocated for the education
of girls and young
women as part of the larger effort to ensure that republican virtue and republican
motherhood would
endure.
THE MEANING OF RACE
By the time of the Revolution, slavery had been firmly in place in America for over
one hundred years. In
many ways, the Revolution served to reinforce the assumptions about race among
white Americans. They
viewed the new nation as a white republic; blacks were slaves, and Indians had no
place. Racial hatred
of blacks increased during the Revolution because many slaves fled their white
masters for the freedom
offered by the British. The same was true for Indians who allied themselves with
the British; Jefferson
wrote in the Declaration of Independence that separation from the Empire was
necessary because George
190
Chapter 7 | Creating Republican Governments, 1776–1790
III had incited “the merciless Indian savages” to destroy the white inhabitants on
the frontier. Similarly,
Thomas Paine argued in Common Sense that Great Britain was guilty of inciting “the
Indians and Negroes
to destroy us.” For his part, Benjamin Franklin wrote in the 1780s that, in time,
alcoholism would wipe out
the Indians, leaving the land free for white settlers.
MY STORY
Phillis Wheatley: “On Being Brought from Africa to America”
Phillis Wheatley (Figure 7.6) was born in Africa in 1753 and sold as a
slave to the Wheatley family of
Boston; her African name is lost to posterity. Although most slaves in
the eighteenth century had no
opportunities to learn to read and write, Wheatley achieved full
literacy and went on to become one of the
best-known poets of the time, although many doubted her authorship of
her poems because of her race.
Figure 7.6 This portrait of Phillis Wheatley from the frontispiece of
Poems on various subjects,
religious and moral shows the writer at work. Despite her status as a
slave, her poems won great
renown in America and in Europe.
Wheatley’s poems reflected her deep Christian beliefs. In the poem
below, how do her views on
Christianity affect her views on slavery?
Twas mercy brought me from my Pagan land,
Taught my benighted soul to understand
That there’s a God, that there’s a Saviour too:
Once I redemption neither sought nor knew.
Some view our sable race with scornful eye,
“Their colour is a diabolic dye.”
Remember, Christians, Negroes, black as Cain,
May be refin’d, and join th’ angelic train.
—Phillis Wheatley, “On Being Brought from Africa to America”
Slavery
Slavery offered the most glaring contradiction between the idea of equality stated
in the Declaration of
Independence (“all men are created equal”) and the reality of race relations in the
late eighteenth century.
Racism shaped white views of blacks. Although he penned the Declaration of
Independence, Thomas
Jefferson owned more than one hundred slaves, of whom he freed only a few either
during his lifetime or
in his will (Figure 7.7). He thought blacks were inferior to whites, dismissing
Phillis Wheatley by arguing,
This OpenStax book is available for free at https://cnx.org/content/col11740/1.3
Chapter 7 | Creating Republican Governments, 1776–1790
191
“Religion indeed has produced a Phillis Wheatley; but it could not produce a poet.”
White slaveholders
took their female slaves as mistresses, as most historians agree that Jefferson did
with one of his slaves,
Sally Hemings. Together, they had several children.
Figure 7.7 This page, taken from one of Thomas Jefferson’s record books from 1795,
lists his slaves.
Click and Explore
Browse the Thomas Jefferson Papers
(http://openstaxcollege.org/l/TJefferson) at
the Massachusetts Historical Society to examine
Jefferson’s “farm books,” in which he
kept records of his land holdings, animal husbandry,
and slaves, including specific
references to Sally Hemings.
Jefferson understood the contradiction fully, and his writings reveal hard-edged
racist assumptions. In his
Notes on the State of Virginia in the 1780s, Jefferson urged the end of slavery in
Virginia and the removal
of blacks from that state. He wrote: “It will probably be asked, Why not retain and
incorporate the blacks
into the state, and thus save the expense of supplying, by importation of white
settlers, the vacancies they
will leave? Deep rooted prejudices entertained by the whites; ten thousand
recollections, by the blacks, of
the injuries they have sustained; new provocations; the real distinctions which
nature has made; and many
other circumstances, will divide us into parties, and produce convulsions which
will probably never end
but in the extermination of the one or the other race. —To these objections, which
are political, may be
added others, which are physical and moral.” Jefferson envisioned an “empire of
liberty” for white farmers
and relied on the argument of sending blacks out of the United States, even if
doing so would completely
destroy the slaveholders’ wealth in their human property.
Southern planters strongly objected to Jefferson’s views on abolishing slavery and
removing blacks from
America. When Jefferson was a candidate for president in 1796, an anonymous
“Southern Planter” wrote,
“If this wild project succeeds, under the auspices of Thomas Jefferson, President
of the United States, and
three hundred thousand slaves are set free in Virginia, farewell to the safety,
prosperity, the importance,
perhaps the very existence of the Southern States” (Figure 7.8). Slaveholders and
many other Americans
protected and defended the institution.
192
Chapter 7 | Creating Republican Governments, 1776–1790
Figure 7.8 This 1796 broadside to “the Citizens of the Southern States” by “a
Southern Planter” argued that Thomas
Jefferson’s advocacy of the emancipation of slaves in his Notes on the State of
Virginia posed a threat to the safety,
the prosperity, and even the existence of the southern states.
Freedom
While racial thinking permeated the new country, and slavery existed in all the new
states, the ideals of
the Revolution generated a movement toward the abolition of slavery. Private
manumissions, by which
slaveholders freed their slaves, provided one pathway from bondage. Slaveholders in
Virginia freed some
ten thousand slaves. In Massachusetts, the Wheatley family manumitted Phillis in
1773 when she was
twenty-one. Other revolutionaries formed societies dedicated to abolishing slavery.
One of the earliest
efforts began in 1775 in Philadelphia, where Dr. Benjamin Rush and other
Philadelphia Quakers formed
what became the Pennsylvania Abolition Society. Similarly, wealthy New Yorkers
formed the New York
Manumission Society in 1785. This society worked to educate black children and
devoted funds to protect
free blacks from kidnapping.
Slavery persisted in the North, however, and the example of Massachusetts
highlights the complexity
of the situation. The 1780 Massachusetts constitution technically freed all slaves.
Nonetheless, several
hundred individuals remained enslaved in the state. In the 1780s, a series of court
decisions undermined
slavery in Massachusetts when several slaves, citing assault by their masters,
successfully sought their
freedom in court. These individuals refused to be treated as slaves in the wake of
the American Revolution.
Despite these legal victories, about eleven hundred slaves continued to be held in
the New England states
in 1800. The contradictions illustrate the difference between the letter and the
spirit of the laws abolishing
slavery in Massachusetts. In all, over thirty-six thousand slaves remained in the
North, with the highest
concentrations in New Jersey and New York. New York only gradually phased out
slavery, with the last
slaves emancipated in the late 1820s.
Indians
The 1783 Treaty of Paris, which ended the war for independence, did not address
Indians at all. All lands
held by the British east of the Mississippi and south of the Great Lakes (except
Spanish Florida) now
belonged to the new American republic (Figure 7.9). Though the treaty remained
silent on the issue,
This OpenStax book is available for free at https://cnx.org/content/col11740/1.3
Chapter 7 | Creating Republican Governments, 1776–1790
193
much of the territory now included in the boundaries of the United States remained
under the control of
native peoples. Earlier in the eighteenth century, a “middle ground” had existed
between powerful native
groups in the West and British and French imperial zones, a place where the various
groups interacted and
accommodated each other. As had happened in the French and Indian War and Pontiac’s
Rebellion, the
Revolutionary War turned the middle ground into a battle zone that no one group
controlled.
Figure 7.9 The 1783 Treaty of Paris divided North America into territories
belonging to the United States and
several European countries, but it failed to address Indian lands at all.
During the Revolution, a complex situation existed among Indians. Many villages
remained neutral.
Some native groups, such as the Delaware, split into factions, with some supporting
the British while
other Delaware maintained their neutrality. The Iroquois Confederacy, a
longstanding alliance of tribes,
also split up: the Mohawk, Cayuga, Onondaga, and Seneca fought on the British side,
while the Oneida
and Tuscarora supported the revolutionaries. Ohio River Valley tribes such as the
Shawnee, Miami, and
Mungo had been fighting for years against colonial expansion west; these groups
supported the British.
Some native peoples who had previously allied with the French hoped the conflict
between the colonies
and Great Britain might lead to French intervention and the return of French rule.
Few Indians sided with
the American revolutionaries, because almost all revolutionaries in the middle
ground viewed them as
an enemy to be destroyed. This racial hatred toward native peoples found expression
in the American
massacre of ninety-six Christian Delawares in 1782. Most of the dead were women and
children.
After the war, the victorious Americans turned a deaf ear to Indian claims to what
the revolutionaries
194
Chapter 7 | Creating Republican Governments, 1776–1790
saw as their hard-won land, and they moved aggressively to assert control over
western New York
and Pennsylvania. In response, Mohawk leader Joseph Brant helped to form the
Western Confederacy,
an alliance of native peoples who pledged to resist American intrusion into what
was then called the
Northwest. The Northwest Indian War (1785–1795) ended with the defeat of the
Indians and their claims.
Under the Treaty of Greenville (1795), the United States gained dominion over land
in Ohio.
RELIGION AND THE STATE
Prior to the Revolution, several colonies had official, tax-supported churches.
After the Revolution, some
questioned the validity of state-authorized churches; the limitation of public
office-holding to those of a
particular faith; and the payment of taxes to support churches. In other states,
especially in New England
where the older Puritan heritage cast a long shadow, religion and state remained
intertwined.
During the colonial era in Virginia, the established church had been the Church of
England, which did
not tolerate Catholics, Baptists, or followers or other religions. In 1786, as a
revolutionary response against
the privileged status of the Church of England, Virginia’s lawmakers approved the
Virginia Statute for
Religious Freedom, which ended the Church of England’s hold and allowed religious
liberty. Under the
statute, no one could be forced to attend or support a specific church or be
prosecuted for his or her beliefs.
Pennsylvania’s original constitution limited officeholders in the state legislature
to those who professed
a belief in both the Old and the New Testaments. This religious test prohibited
Jews from holding that
office, as the New Testament is not part of Jewish belief. In 1790, however,
Pennsylvania removed this
qualification from its constitution.
The New England states were slower to embrace freedom of religion. In the former
Puritan colonies,
the Congregational Church (established by seventeenth-century Puritans) remained
the church of most
inhabitants. Massachusetts, Connecticut, and New Hampshire all required the public
support of Christian
churches. Article III of the Massachusetts constitution blended the goal of
republicanism with the goal of
promoting Protestant Christianity. It reads:
As the happiness of a people, and the good order and preservation of civil
government,
essentially depend upon piety, religion and morality; and as these cannot be
generally diffused
through a community, but by the institution of the public worship of GOD,
and of public
instructions in piety, religion and morality: Therefore, to promote their
happiness and to secure
the good order and preservation of their government, the people of this
Commonwealth have
a right to invest their legislature with power to authorize and require, and
the legislature
shall, from time to time, authorize and require, the several towns,
parishes, precincts, and
other bodies-politic, or religious societies, to make suitable provision, at
their own expense, for
the institution of the public worship of GOD, and for the support and
maintenance of public
protestant teachers of piety, religion and morality, in all cases where such
provision shall not be
made voluntarily. . . .
And every denomination of Christians, demeaning themselves peaceably, and as
good subjects
of the Commonwealth, shall be equally under the protection of the law: And
no subordination
of any one sect or denomination to another shall ever be established by law.
This OpenStax book is available for free at https://cnx.org/content/col11740/1.3
Chapter 7 | Creating Republican Governments, 1776–1790
195
Click and Explore
Read more about religion and state governments at
the Religion and the Founding
of the American Republic
(http://openstaxcollege.org/l/farmbook1) exhibition page
on the Library of Congress site. What was the
meaning of the term “nursing fathers” of
the church?
7.3 Debating Democracy
By the end of this section, you will be able to:
• Explain the development of state constitutions
• Describe the features of the Articles of Confederation
• Analyze the causes and consequences of Shays’ Rebellion
The task of creating republican governments in each of the former colonies, now
independent states,
presented a new opportunity for American revolutionaries to define themselves anew
after casting off
British control. On the state and national levels, citizens of the new United
States debated who would hold
the keys to political power. The states proved to be a laboratory for how much
democracy, or majority rule,
would be tolerated.
THE STATE CONSTITUTIONS
In 1776, John Adams urged the thirteen independent colonies—soon to be states—to
write their own state
constitutions. Enlightenment political thought profoundly influenced Adams and
other revolutionary
leaders seeking to create viable republican governments. The ideas of the French
philosopher
Montesquieu, who had advocated the separation of powers in government, guided
Adams’s thinking.
Responding to a request for advice on proper government from North Carolina, Adams
wrote Thoughts
on Government, which influenced many state legislatures. Adams did not advocate
democracy; rather, he
wrote, “there is no good government but what is republican.” Fearing the potential
for tyranny with only
one group in power, he suggested a system of checks and balances in which three
separate branches of
government—executive, legislative, and judicial—would maintain a balance of power.
He also proposed
that each state remain sovereign, as its own republic. The state constitutions of
the new United States
illustrate different approaches to addressing the question of how much democracy
would prevail in the
thirteen republics. Some states embraced democratic practices, while others adopted
far more aristocratic
and republican ones.
196
Chapter 7 | Creating Republican Governments, 1776–1790
Click and Explore
Visit the Avalon Project
(http://openstaxcollege.org/l/statecons) to read the
constitutions of the seven states (Virginia, New
Jersey, North Carolina, Maryland,
Connecticut, Pennsylvania, and Delaware) that had
written constitutions by the end of
1776.
The 1776 Pennsylvania constitution and the 1784 New Hampshire constitution both
provide examples of
democratic tendencies. In Pennsylvania, the requirement to own property in order to
vote was eliminated,
and if a man was twenty-one or older, had paid taxes, and had lived in the same
location for one year, he
could vote (Figure 7.10). This opened voting to most free white male citizens of
Pennsylvania. The 1784
New Hampshire constitution allowed every small town and village to send
representatives to the state
government, making the lower house of the legislature a model of democratic
government.
Figure 7.10 The 1776 Pennsylvania constitution, the first page of which is shown
here, adhered to more democratic
principles than some other states’ constitutions did initially.
Conservative Whigs, who distrusted the idea of majority rule, recoiled from the
abolition of property
qualifications for voting and office holding in Pennsylvania. Conservative Whig
John Adams reacted with
horror to the 1776 Pennsylvania constitution, declaring that it was “so
democratical that it must produce
confusion and every evil work.” In his mind and those of other conservative Whigs,
this constitution
simply put too much power in the hands of men who had no business exercising the
right to vote.
Pennsylvania’s constitution also eliminated the executive branch (there was no
governor) and the upper
house. Instead, Pennsylvania had a one-house—a unicameral—legislature.
The Maryland and South Carolina constitutions provide examples of efforts to limit
the power of a
democratic majority. Maryland’s, written in 1776, restricted office holding to the
wealthy planter class. A
man had to own at least £5,000 worth of personal property to be the governor of
Maryland, and possess
an estate worth £1,000 to be a state senator. This latter qualification excluded
over 90 percent of the white
males in Maryland from political office. The 1778 South Carolina constitution also
sought to protect the
interests of the wealthy. Governors and lieutenant governors of the state had to
have “a settled plantation
This OpenStax book is available for free at https://cnx.org/content/col11740/1.3
Chapter 7 | Creating Republican Governments, 1776–1790
197
or freehold in their and each of their own right of the value of at least ten
thousand pounds currency,
clear of debt.” This provision limited high office in the state to its wealthiest
inhabitants. Similarly, South
Carolina state senators had to own estates valued at £2,000.
John Adams wrote much of the 1780 Massachusetts constitution, which reflected his
fear of too much
democracy. It therefore created two legislative chambers, an upper and lower house,
and a strong
governor with broad veto powers. Like South Carolina, Massachusetts put in place
office-holding
requirements: To be governor under the new constitution, a candidate had to own an
estate worth at least
£1,000. To serve in the state senate, a man had to own an estate worth at least
£300 and have at least £600 in
total wealth. To vote, he had to be worth at least sixty pounds. To further keep
democracy in check, judges
were appointed, not elected. One final limit was the establishment of the state
capitol in the commercial
center of Boston, which made it difficult for farmers from the western part of the
state to attend legislative
sessions.
THE ARTICLES OF CONFEDERATION
Most revolutionaries pledged their greatest loyalty to their individual states.
Recalling the experience
of British reform efforts imposed in the 1760s and 1770s, they feared a strong
national government
and took some time to adopt the Articles of Confederation, the first national
constitution. In June 1776,
the Continental Congress prepared to announce independence and began to think about
the creation
of a new government to replace royal authority. Reaching agreement on the Articles
of Confederation
proved difficult as members of the Continental Congress argued over western land
claims. Connecticut,
for example, used its colonial charter to assert its claim to western lands in
Pennsylvania and the Ohio
Territory (Figure 7.11).
Figure 7.11 Connecticut, like many other states, used its state constitution to
stake claims to uncharted western
lands.
Members of the Continental Congress also debated what type of representation would
be best and tried to
figure out how to pay the expenses of the new government. In lieu of creating a new
federal government,
the Articles of Confederation created a “league of friendship” between the states.
Congress readied the
Articles in 1777 but did not officially approve them until 1781 (Figure 7.12). The
delay of four years
illustrates the difficulty of getting the thirteen states to agree on a plan of
national government. Citizens
viewed their respective states as sovereign republics and guarded their
prerogatives against other states.
198
Chapter 7 | Creating Republican Governments, 1776–1790
Figure 7.12 The first page of the 1777 Articles of Confederation, printed by
Alexander Purdie, emphasized the
“perpetual union” between the states.
The Articles of Confederation authorized a unicameral legislature, a continuation
of the earlier Continental
Congress. The people could not vote directly for members of the national Congress;
rather, state
legislatures decided who would represent the state. In practice, the national
Congress was composed
of state delegations. There was no president or executive office of any kind, and
there was no national
judiciary (or Supreme Court) for the United States.
Passage of any law under the Articles of Confederation proved difficult. It took
the consensus of nine states
for any measure to pass, and amending the Articles required the consent of all the
states, also extremely
difficult to achieve. Further, any acts put forward by the Congress were non-
binding; states had the option
to enforce them or not. This meant that while the Congress had power over Indian
affairs and foreign
policy, individual states could choose whether or not to comply.
The Congress did not have the power to tax citizens of the United States, a fact
that would soon have
serious consequences for the republic. During the Revolutionary War, the
Continental Congress had sent
requisitions for funds to the individual former colonies (now revolutionary
states). These states already
had an enormous financial burden because they had to pay for militias as well as
supply them. In the end,
the states failed to provide even half the funding requested by the Congress during
the war, which led to
a national debt in the tens of millions by 1784.
By the 1780s, some members of the Congress were greatly concerned about the
financial health of the
republic, and they argued that the national government needed greater power,
especially the power to tax.
This required amending the Articles of Confederation with the consent of all the
states. Those who called
for a stronger federal government were known as nationalists. The nationalist group
that pushed for the
power to tax included Washington’s chief of staff, Alexander Hamilton; Virginia
planter James Madison;
Pennsylvania’s wealthy merchant Robert Morris (who served under the Confederation
government as
superintendent of finance in the early 1780s); and Pennsylvania lawyer James
Wilson. Two New Yorkers,
Gouverneur Morris and James Duane, also joined the effort to address the debt and
the weakness of the
Confederation government.
These men proposed a 5 percent tax on imports coming into the United States, a
measure that would have
yielded enough revenue to clear the debt. However, their proposal failed to achieve
unanimous support
from the states when Rhode Island rejected it. Plans for a national bank also
failed to win unanimous
support. The lack of support illustrates the Americans’ deep suspicion of a
powerful national government,
a suspicion that originated from the unilateral and heavy-handed reform efforts
that the British Parliament
This OpenStax book is available for free at https://cnx.org/content/col11740/1.3
Chapter 7 | Creating Republican Governments, 1776–1790
199
imposed on the colonies in the 1760s and 1770s. Without revenue, the Congress could
not pay back
American creditors who had lent it money. However, it did manage to make interest
payments to foreign
creditors in France and the Dutch Republic, fearful that defaulting on those
payments would destroy the
republic’s credit and leave it unable to secure loans.
One soldier in the Continental Army, Joseph Plumb Martin, recounted how he received
no pay in paper
money after 1777 and only one month’s payment in specie, or hard currency, in 1781.
Like thousands
of other soldiers, Martin had fought valiantly against the British and helped
secure independence, but
had not been paid for his service. In the 1780s and beyond, men like Martin would
soon express their
profound dissatisfaction with their treatment. Their anger found expression in
armed uprisings and
political divisions.
Establishing workable foreign and commercial policies under the Articles of
Confederation also proved
difficult. Each state could decide for itself whether to comply with treaties
between the Congress and
foreign countries, and there were no means of enforcement. Both Great Britain and
Spain understood
the weakness of the Confederation Congress, and they refused to make commercial
agreements with
the United States because they doubted they would be enforced. Without stable
commercial policies,
American exporters found it difficult to do business, and British goods flooded
U.S. markets in the 1780s,
in a repetition of the economic imbalance that existed before the Revolutionary
War.
The Confederation Congress under the Articles did achieve success through a series
of directives called
land ordinances, which established rules for the settlement of western lands in the
public domain and
the admission of new states to the republic. The ordinances were designed to
prepare the land for sale
to citizens and raise revenue to boost the failing economy of the republic. In the
land ordinances, the
Confederation Congress created the Mississippi and Southwest Territories and
stipulated that slavery
would be permitted there. The system of dividing the vast domains of the United
States stands as a
towering achievement of the era, a blueprint for American western expansion.
The Ordinance of 1784, written by Thomas Jefferson and the first of what were later
called the Northwest
Ordinances, directed that new states would be formed from a huge area of land below
the Great Lakes, and
these new states would have equal standing with the original states. The Ordinance
of 1785 called for the
division of this land into rectangular plots in order to prepare for the government
sale of land. Surveyors
would divide the land into townships of six square miles, and the townships would
be subdivided into
thirty-six plots of 640 acres each, which could be further subdivided. The price of
an acre of land was
set at a minimum of one dollar, and the land was to be sold at public auction under
the direction of the
Confederation.
The Ordinance of 1787 officially turned the land into an incorporated territory
called the Northwest
Territory and prohibited slavery north of the Ohio River (Figure 7.13). The map of
the 1787 Northwest
Territory shows how the public domain was to be divided by the national government
for sale. Townships
of thirty-six square miles were to be surveyed. Each had land set aside for schools
and other civic purposes.
Smaller parcels could then be made: a 640-acre section could be divided into
quarter-sections of 160 acres,
and then again into sixteen sections of 40 acres. The geometric grid pattern
established by the ordinance is
still evident today on the American landscape. Indeed, much of the western United
States, when viewed
from an airplane, is composed of an orderly grid system.
200
Chapter 7 | Creating Republican Governments, 1776–1790
Figure 7.13 The Northwest Ordinance of 1787 created territories and an orderly
method for the admission of new
states.
Click and Explore
Visit Window Seat
(http://openstaxcollege.org/l/thescream) to explore aerial views
of the grid system established by the Northwest
Ordinance of 1787, which is still
evident in much of the Midwest.
The land ordinances proved to be the great triumph of the Confederation Congress.
The Congress would
appoint a governor for the territories, and when the population in the territory
reached five thousand free
adult settlers, those citizens could create their own legislature and begin the
process of moving toward
statehood. When the population reached sixty thousand, the territory could become a
new state.
SHAYS’ REBELLION
Despite Congress’s victory in creating an orderly process for organizing new states
and territories, land
sales failed to produce the revenue necessary to deal with the dire economic
problems facing the new
country in the 1780s. Each state had issued large amounts of paper money and, in
the aftermath of the
Revolution, widespread internal devaluation of that currency occurred as many lost
confidence in the
value of state paper money and the Continental dollar. A period of extreme
inflation set in. Added to
this dilemma was American citizens’ lack of specie (gold and silver currency) to
conduct routine business.
Meanwhile, demobilized soldiers, many of whom had spent their formative years
fighting rather than
learning a peacetime trade, searched desperately for work.
The economic crisis came to a head in 1786 and 1787 in western Massachusetts, where
farmers were in
a difficult position: they faced high taxes and debts, which they found nearly
impossible to pay with the
worthless state and Continental paper money. For several years after the peace in
1783, these indebted
citizens had petitioned the state legislature for redress. Many were veterans of
the Revolutionary War who
had returned to their farms and families after the fighting ended and now faced
losing their homes.
This OpenStax book is available for free at https://cnx.org/content/col11740/1.3
Chapter 7 | Creating Republican Governments, 1776–1790
201
Their petitions to the state legislature raised economic and political issues for
citizens of the new state.
How could people pay their debts and state taxes when paper money proved unstable?
Why was the
state government located in Boston, the center of the merchant elite? Why did the
1780 Massachusetts
constitution cater to the interests of the wealthy? To the indebted farmers, the
situation in the 1780s seemed
hauntingly familiar; the revolutionaries had routed the British, but a new form of
seemingly corrupt and
self-serving government had replaced them.
In 1786, when the state legislature again refused to address the petitioners’
requests, Massachusetts citizens
took up arms and closed courthouses across the state to prevent foreclosure
(seizure of land in lieu of
overdue loan payments) on farms in debt. The farmers wanted their debts forgiven,
and they demanded
that the 1780 constitution be revised to address citizens beyond the wealthy elite
who could serve in the
legislature.
Many of the rebels were veterans of the war for independence, including Captain
Daniel Shays from
Pelham (Figure 7.14). Although Shays was only one of many former officers in the
Continental Army
who took part in the revolt, authorities in Boston singled him out as a ringleader,
and the uprising became
known as Shays’ Rebellion. The Massachusetts legislature responded to the closing
of the courthouses
with a flurry of legislation, much of it designed to punish the rebels. The
government offered the rebels
clemency if they took an oath of allegiance. Otherwise, local officials were
empowered to use deadly force
against them without fear of prosecution. Rebels would lose their property, and if
any militiamen refused
to defend the state, they would be executed.
Figure 7.14 This woodcut, from Bickerstaff’s Boston Almanack of 1787, depicts
Daniel Shays and Job Shattuck.
Shays and Shattuck were two of the leaders of the rebels who rose up against the
Massachusetts government in
1786 to 1787. As Revolutionary War veterans, both men wear the uniform of officers
of the Continental Army.
Despite these measures, the rebellion continued. To address the uprising, Governor
James Bowdoin raised
a private army of forty-four hundred men, funded by wealthy Boston merchants,
without the approval of
the legislature. The climax of Shays’ Rebellion came in January 1787, when the
rebels attempted to seize
the federal armory in Springfield, Massachusetts. A force loyal to the state
defeated them there, although
the rebellion continued into February.
Shays’ Rebellion resulted in eighteen deaths overall, but the uprising had lasting
effects. To men of
property, mostly conservative Whigs, Shays’ Rebellion strongly suggested the
republic was falling into
anarchy and chaos. The other twelve states had faced similar economic and political
difficulties, and
continuing problems seemed to indicate that on a national level, a democratic
impulse was driving
the population. Shays’ Rebellion convinced George Washington to come out of
retirement and lead the
convention called for by Alexander Hamilton to amend the Articles of Confederation
in order to deal with
insurgencies like the one in Massachusetts and provide greater stability in the
United States.
202
Chapter 7 | Creating Republican Governments, 1776–1790
7.4 The Constitutional Convention and Federal Constitution
By the end of this section, you will be able to:
• Identify the central issues of the 1787 Constitutional Convention and
their solutions
• Describe the conflicts over the ratification of the federal constitution
The economic problems that plagued the thirteen states of the Confederation set the
stage for the creation
of a strong central government under a federal constitution. Although the original
purpose of the
convention was to amend the Articles of Confederation, some—though not all—
delegates moved quickly
to create a new framework for a more powerful national government. This proved
extremely controversial.
Those who attended the convention split over the issue of robust, centralized
government and questions
of how Americans would be represented in the federal government. Those who opposed
the proposal for
a stronger federal government argued that such a plan betrayed the Revolution by
limiting the voice of the
American people.
THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION
There had been earlier efforts to address the Confederation’s perilous state. In
early 1786, Virginia’s
James Madison advocated a meeting of states to address the widespread economic
problems that plagued
the new nation. Heeding Madison’s call, the legislature in Virginia invited all
thirteen states to meet in
Annapolis, Maryland, to work on solutions to the issue of commerce between the
states. Eight states
responded to the invitation. But the resulting 1786 Annapolis Convention failed to
provide any solutions
because only five states sent delegates. These delegates did, however, agree to a
plan put forward by
Alexander Hamilton for a second convention to meet in May 1787 in Philadelphia.
Shays’ Rebellion gave
greater urgency to the planned convention. In February 1787, in the wake of the
uprising in western
Massachusetts, the Confederation Congress authorized the Philadelphia convention.
This time, all the
states except Rhode Island sent delegates to Philadelphia to confront the problems
of the day.
The stated purpose of the Philadelphia Convention in 1787 was to amend the Articles
of Confederation.
Very quickly, however, the attendees decided to create a new framework for a
national government. That
framework became the United States Constitution, and the Philadelphia convention
became known as
the Constitutional Convention of 1787. Fifty-five men met in Philadelphia in
secret; historians know of
the proceedings only because James Madison kept careful notes of what transpired.
The delegates knew
that what they were doing would be controversial; Rhode Island refused to send
delegates, and New
Hampshire’s delegates arrived late. Two delegates from New York, Robert Yates and
John Lansing, left
the convention when it became clear that the Articles were being put aside and a
new plan of national
government was being drafted. They did not believe the delegates had the authority
to create a strong
national government.
Click and Explore
Read “Reasons for Dissent from the Proposed
Constitution”
(http://openstaxcollege.org/l/YatesLansing) in
order to understand why Robert
Yates and John Lansing, New York’s delegates to
the 1787 Philadelphia Convention,
didn’t believe the convention should draft a new
plan of national government.
This OpenStax book is available for free at https://cnx.org/content/col11740/1.3
Chapter 7 | Creating Republican Governments, 1776–1790
203
THE QUESTION OF REPRESENTATION
One issue that the delegates in Philadelphia addressed was the way in which
representatives to the new
national government would be chosen. Would individual citizens be able to elect
representatives? Would
representatives be chosen by state legislatures? How much representation was
appropriate for each state?
James Madison put forward a proposition known as the Virginia Plan, which called
for a strong national
government that could overturn state laws (Figure 7.15). The plan featured a
bicameral or two-house
legislature, with an upper and a lower house. The people of the states would elect
the members of the
lower house, whose numbers would be determined by the population of the state.
State legislatures would
send delegates to the upper house. The number of representatives in the upper
chamber would also be
based on the state’s population. This proportional representation gave the more
populous states, like
Virginia, more political power. The Virginia Plan also called for an executive
branch and a judicial branch,
both of which were absent under the Articles of Confederation. The lower and upper
house together were
to appoint members to the executive and judicial branches. Under this plan,
Virginia, the most populous
state, would dominate national political power and ensure its interests, including
slavery, would be safe.
Figure 7.15 James Madison’s Virginia Plan, shown here, proposed a strong national
government with proportional
state representation.
The Virginia Plan’s call for proportional representation alarmed the
representatives of the smaller states.
William Paterson introduced a New Jersey Plan to counter Madison’s scheme,
proposing that all states
have equal votes in a unicameral national legislature. He also addressed the
economic problems of the
day by calling for the Congress to have the power to regulate commerce, to raise
revenue though taxes on
imports and through postage, and to enforce Congressional requisitions from the
states.
Roger Sherman from Connecticut offered a compromise to break the deadlock over the
thorny question of
representation. His Connecticut Compromise, also known as the Great Compromise,
outlined a different
bicameral legislature in which the upper house, the Senate, would have equal
representation for all states;
each state would be represented by two senators chosen by the state legislatures.
Only the lower house,
the House of Representatives, would have proportional representation.
THE QUESTION OF SLAVERY
The question of slavery stood as a major issue at the Constitutional Convention
because slaveholders
204
Chapter 7 | Creating Republican Governments, 1776–1790
wanted slaves to be counted along with whites, termed “free inhabitants,” when
determining a state’s
total population. This, in turn, would augment the number of representatives
accorded to those states
in the lower house. Some northerners, however, such as New York’s Gouverneur
Morris, hated slavery
and did not even want the term included in the new national plan of government.
Slaveholders argued
that slavery imposed great burdens upon them and that, because they carried this
liability, they deserved
special consideration; slaves needed to be counted for purposes of representation.
The issue of counting or not counting slaves for purposes of representation
connected directly to the
question of taxation. Beginning in 1775, the Second Continental Congress asked
states to pay for war
by collecting taxes and sending the tax money to the Congress. The amount each
state had to deliver in
tax revenue was determined by a state’s total population, including both free and
enslaved individuals.
States routinely fell far short of delivering the money requested by Congress under
the plan. In April 1783,
the Confederation Congress amended the earlier system of requisition by having
slaves count as three-
fifths of the white population. In this way, slaveholders gained a significant tax
break. The delegates in
Philadelphia adopted this same three-fifths formula in the summer of 1787.
Under the three-fifths compromise in the 1787 Constitution, each slave would be
counted as three-fifths of
a white person. Article 1, Section 2 stipulated that “Representatives and direct
Taxes shall be apportioned
among the several states . . . according to their respective Number, which shall be
determined by adding to
the whole number of free Persons, including those bound for service for a Term of
Years [white servants],
and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other persons.” Since
representation in the House of
Representatives was based on the population of a state, the three-fifths compromise
gave extra political
power to slave states, although not as much as if the total population, both free
and slave, had been used.
Significantly, no direct federal income tax was immediately imposed. (The Sixteenth
Amendment, ratified
in 1913, put in place a federal income tax.) Northerners agreed to the three-fifths
compromise because the
Northwest Ordinance of 1787, passed by the Confederation Congress, banned slavery
in the future states
of the northwest. Northern delegates felt this ban balanced political power between
states with slaves and
those without. The three-fifths compromise gave an advantage to slaveholders; they
added three-fifths of
their human property to their state’s population, allowing them to send
representatives based in part on
the number of slaves they held.
THE QUESTION OF DEMOCRACY
Many of the delegates to the Constitutional Convention had serious reservations
about democracy, which
they believed promoted anarchy. To allay these fears, the Constitution blunted
democratic tendencies
that appeared to undermine the republic. Thus, to avoid giving the people too much
direct power, the
delegates made certain that senators were chosen by the state legislatures, not
elected directly by the
people (direct elections of senators came with the Seventeenth Amendment to the
Constitution, ratified in
1913). As an additional safeguard, the delegates created the Electoral College, the
mechanism for choosing
the president. Under this plan, each state has a certain number of electors, which
is its number of senators
(two) plus its number of representatives in the House of Representatives. Critics,
then as now, argue that
this process prevents the direct election of the president.
THE FIGHT OVER RATIFICATION
The draft constitution was finished in September 1787. The delegates decided that
in order for the new
national government to be implemented, each state must first hold a special
ratifying convention. When
nine of the thirteen had approved the plan, the constitution would go into effect.
When the American public learned of the new constitution, opinions were deeply
divided, but most people
were opposed. To salvage their work in Philadelphia, the architects of the new
national government began
a campaign to sway public opinion in favor of their blueprint for a strong central
government. In the
fierce debate that erupted, the two sides articulated contrasting visions of the
American republic and of
democracy. Supporters of the 1787 Constitution, known as Federalists, made the case
that a centralized
This OpenStax book is available for free at https://cnx.org/content/col11740/1.3
Chapter 7 | Creating Republican Governments, 1776–1790
205
republic provided the best solution for the future. Those who opposed it, known as
Anti-Federalists,
argued that the Constitution would consolidate all power in a national government,
robbing the states
of the power to make their own decisions. To them, the Constitution appeared to
mimic the old corrupt
and centralized British regime, under which a far-off government made the laws.
Anti-Federalists argued
that wealthy aristocrats would run the new national government, and that the elite
would not represent
ordinary citizens; the rich would monopolize power and use the new government to
formulate policies
that benefited their class—a development that would also undermine local state
elites. They also argued
that the Constitution did not contain a bill of rights.
New York’s ratifying convention illustrates the divide between the Federalists and
Anti-Federalists. When
one Anti-Federalist delegate named Melancton Smith took issue with the scheme of
representation as
being too limited and not reflective of the people, Alexander Hamilton responded:
It has been observed by an honorable gentleman [Smith], that a pure
democracy, if it were
practicable, would be the most perfect government. Experience has proven,
that no position
in politics is more false than this. The ancient democracies, in which the
people themselves
deliberated, never possessed one feature of good government. Their very
character was tyranny;
their figure deformity: When they assembled, the field of debate presented an
ungovernable
mob, not only incapable of deliberation, but prepared for every enormity. In
these assemblies,
the enemies of the people brought forward their plans of ambition
systematically. They were
opposed by their enemies of another party; and it became a matter of
contingency, whether the
people subjected themselves to be led blindly by one tyrant or by another.
The Federalists, particularly John Jay, Alexander Hamilton, and James Madison, put
their case to the public
in a famous series of essays known as The Federalist Papers. These were first
published in New York and
subsequently republished elsewhere in the United States.
206
Chapter 7 | Creating Republican Governments, 1776–1790
DEFINING "AMERICAN"
James Madison on the Benefits of Republicanism
The tenth essay in The Federalist Papers, often called Federalist No.
10, is one of the most famous.
Written by James Madison (Figure 7.16), it addresses the problems of
political parties (“factions”).
Madison argued that there were two approaches to solving the problem of
political parties: a republican
government and a democracy. He argued that a large republic provided
the best defense against what
he viewed as the tumult of direct democracy. Compromises would be
reached in a large republic and
citizens would be represented by representatives of their own choosing.
Figure 7.16 John Vanderlyn’s 1816 portrait depicts James Madison, one
of the leading Federalists
who supported the 1787 Constitution.
From this view of the subject, it may be concluded, that a pure
Democracy, by which I
mean a Society consisting of a small number of citizens, who
assemble and administer the
Government in person, can admit of no cure for the mischiefs of
faction. A common passion
or interest will, in almost every case, be felt by a majority
of the whole; a communication
and concert result from the form of Government itself; and
there is nothing to check the
inducements to sacrifice the weaker party, or an obnoxious
individual. Hence it is, that such
Democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and
contention; have ever been found
incompatible with personal security, or the rights of property;
and have in general been as
short in their lives, as they have been violent in their
deaths. Theoretic politicians, who
have patronized this species of Government, have erroneously
supposed, that by reducing
mankind to a perfect equality in their political rights, they
would, at the same time, be perfectly
equalized and assimilated in their possessions, their opinions,
and their passions.
A Republic, by which I mean a Government in which the scheme of
representation takes
place, opens a different prospect, and promises the cure for
which we are seeking. Let us
examine the points in which it varies from pure Democracy, and
we shall comprehend both
the nature of the cure, and the efficacy which it must derive
from the Union.
The two great points of difference, between a Democracy and a
Republic, are, first, the
delegation of the Government, in the latter, to a small number
of citizens elected by the rest:
Secondly, the greater number of citizens, and greater sphere of
country, over which the latter
may be extended.
Does Madison recommend republicanism or democracy as the best form of
government? What
arguments does he use to prove his point?
This OpenStax book is available for free at https://cnx.org/content/col11740/1.3
Chapter 7 | Creating Republican Governments, 1776–1790
207
Click and Explore
Read the full text of Federalist No. 10
(http://openstaxcollege.org/l/federalist10) on
Wikisource. What do you think are Madison’s most and
least compelling arguments?
How would different members of the new United States
view his arguments?
Including all the state ratifying conventions around the country, a total of fewer
than two thousand men
voted on whether to adopt the new plan of government. In the end, the Constitution
only narrowly
won approval (Figure 7.17). In New York, the vote was thirty in favor to twenty-
seven opposed. In
Massachusetts, the vote to approve was 187 to 168, and some claim supporters of the
Constitution resorted
to bribes in order to ensure approval. Virginia ratified by a vote of eighty-nine
to seventy-nine, and
Rhode Island by thirty-four to thirty-two. The opposition to the Constitution
reflected the fears that a new
national government, much like the British monarchy, created too much centralized
power and, as a result,
deprived citizens in the various states of the ability to make their own decisions.
Figure 7.17 The first page of the 1787 United States Constitution, shown here,
begins: “We the People of the United
States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic
Tranquility, provide for the common
defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to
ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain
and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”
208
Chapter 7 | Creating Republican Governments, 1776–1790
Key Terms
Anti-Federalists those who opposed the 1787 Constitution and favored stronger
individual states
bicameral having two legislative houses, an upper and a lower house
checks and balances the system that ensures a balance of power among the branches
of government
Connecticut Compromise also known as the Great Compromise, Roger Sherman’s proposal
at the
Constitutional Convention for a bicameral legislature,
with the upper house
having equal representation for all states and the lower house having proportional
representation
conservative Whigs the politically and economically elite revolutionary class that
wanted to limit
political participation to a few powerful families
coverture the legal status of married women in the United States, which included
complete legal and
economic dependence on husbands
democracy a system of government in which the majority rules
Electoral College the mechanism by which electors, based on the number of
representatives from each
state, choose the president
Federalists those who supported the 1787 Constitution and a strong central
government; these advocates
of the new national government formed the ruling political party in the
1790s
majority rule a fundamental principle of democracy, providing that the majority
should have the power
to make decisions binding upon the whole
manumission the freeing of a slave by his or her owner
monarchy a form of government with a monarch at its head
proportional representation representation that gives more populous states greater
political power by
allowing them more representatives
radical Whigs revolutionaries who favored broadening participation in the political
process
three-fifths compromise the agreement at the Constitutional Convention that each
slave would count as
three-fifths of a white person for purposes of
representation
unicameral having a single house (of legislative government)
Summary
7.1 Common Sense: From Monarchy to an American Republic
The guiding principle of republicanism was that the people themselves would appoint
or select the
leaders who would represent them. The debate over how much democracy (majority
rule) to incorporate
in the governing of the new United States raised questions about who was best
qualified to participate
in government and have the right to vote. Revolutionary leaders argued that
property holders had the
greatest stake in society and favored a republic that would limit political rights
to property holders. In
this way, republicanism exhibited a bias toward the elite. George Washington served
as a role model for
the new republic, embodying the exceptional talent and public virtue prized in its
political and social
philosophy.
This OpenStax book is available for free at https://cnx.org/content/col11740/1.3
Chapter 7 | Creating Republican Governments, 1776–1790
209
7.2 How Much Revolutionary Change?
After the Revolution, the balance of power between women and men and between
whites, blacks, and
Indians remained largely unchanged. Yet revolutionary principles, including the
call for universal equality
in the Declaration of Independence, inspired and emboldened many. Abigail Adams and
others pressed
for greater rights for women, while the Pennsylvania Abolition Society and New York
Manumission
Society worked toward the abolition of slavery. Nonetheless, for blacks, women, and
native peoples, the
revolutionary ideals of equality fell far short of reality. In the new republic,
full citizenship—including the
right to vote—did not extend to nonwhites or to women.
7.3 Debating Democracy
The late 1770s and 1780s witnessed one of the most creative political eras as each
state drafted its
own constitution. The Articles of Confederation, a weak national league among the
states, reflected the
dominant view that power should be located in the states and not in a national
government. However,
neither the state governments nor the Confederation government could solve the
enormous economic
problems resulting from the long and costly Revolutionary War. The economic crisis
led to Shays’
Rebellion by residents of western Massachusetts, and to the decision to revise the
Confederation
government.
7.4 The Constitutional Convention and Federal Constitution
The economic crisis of the 1780s, shortcomings of the Articles of Confederation,
and outbreak of Shays’
Rebellion spurred delegates from twelve of the thirteen states to gather for the
Constitutional Convention
of 1787. Although the stated purpose of the convention was to modify the Articles
of Confederation, their
mission shifted to the building of a new, strong federal government. Federalists
like James Madison and
Alexander Hamilton led the charge for a new United States Constitution, the
document that endures as
the oldest written constitution in the world, a testament to the work done in 1787
by the delegates in
Philadelphia.
Review Questions
1. To what form of government did the American 4. Which of the following
figures did not actively
revolutionaries turn after the war for challenge the status of
women in the early
independence? American republic?
A. republicanism A. Abigail Adams
B. monarchy B. Phillis Wheatley
C. democracy C. Mercy Otis Warren
D. oligarchy D. Judith Sargent
Murray
2. Which of the following was not one of 5. Which state had the
clearest separation of
Franklin’s thirteen virtues? church and state?
A. sincerity A. New Hampshire
B. temperance B. Pennsylvania
C. mercy C. Virginia
D. tranquility D. New York
3. What defined republicanism as a social 6. How would you
characterize Thomas
philosophy? Jefferson’s ideas on race
and slavery?
210
Chapter 7 | Creating Republican Governments, 1776–1790
7. Which of the following states had the most 10.
Which plan resolved the issue of
democratic constitution in the 1780s?
representation for the U.S. Constitution?
A. Pennsylvania
A. the Rhode Island Agreement
B. Massachusetts
B. the New Jersey Plan
C. South Carolina
C. the Connecticut Compromise
D. Maryland
D. the Virginia Plan
8. Under the Articles of Confederation, what 11.
How was the U.S. Constitution ratified?
power did the national Confederation Congress
A. by each state at special ratifying
have?
conventions
A. the power to tax
B. at the Constitutional Convention of 1787
B. the power to enforce foreign treaties
C. at the Confederation Convention
C. the power to enforce commercial trade
D. by popular referendum in each state
agreements
D. the power to create land ordinances 12.
Explain the argument that led to the three-
fifths rule and the consequences of that rule.
9. What were the primary causes of Shays’
Rebellion?
Critical Thinking Questions
13. Describe the state constitutions that were more democratic and those that were
less so. What effect
would these different constitutions have upon those states? Who could participate
in government, whether
by voting or by holding public office? Whose interests were represented, and whose
were compromised?
14. In what ways does the United States Constitution manifest the principles of
both republican and
democratic forms of government? In what ways does it deviate from those principles?
15. In this chapter’s discussion of New York’s ratifying convention, Alexander
Hamilton takes issue with
Anti-Federalist delegate Melancton Smith’s assertion that (as Hamilton says) “a
pure democracy, if it were
practicable, would be the most perfect government.” What did Smith—and Hamilton—
mean by “a pure
democracy”? How does this compare to the type of democracy that represents the
modern United States?
16. Describe popular attitudes toward African Americans, women, and Indians in the
wake of the
Revolution. In what ways did the established social and political order depend upon
keeping members of
these groups in their circumscribed roles? If those roles were to change, how would
American society and
politics have had to adjust?
17. How did the process of creating and ratifying the Constitution, and the
language of the Constitution
itself, confirm the positions of African Americans, women, and Indians in the new
republic? How did these
roles compare to the stated goals of the republic?
18. What were the circumstances that led to Shays’ Rebellion? What was the
government’s response?
Would this response have confirmed or negated the grievances of the participants in
the uprising? Why?
This OpenStax book is available for free at https://cnx.org/content/col11740/1.3
