An eyewitness to the Boston Tea Party, he testified before a British council that revolt was brewing in America. When his warnings proved true, and the first shots of the revolution were fired, Williamson came home and reestablished his medical practice. North Carolina’s governor ultimately enlisted him as surgeon general to the militia. He is especially remembered for his pioneering efforts to mitigate illness within the fighting ranks by applying a number of hygienic methods. After the war, Williamson also served in his state legislature, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Continental Congress.
Native-born Virginian James McClurg was an internationally renowned physician whose medical writings brought him much attention within the scientific community. He earned his medical degree from the University of Edinburgh (Scotland) and did postgraduate work in Paris and London. In addition to his wartime surgical work, he served as president of the Virginia Medical Society in his later years and as a medical professor for a time at his alma mater, the College of William and Mary. Like that of the other physicians among the signers, his expertise helped ground the Constitutional Convention.
LEADERS
As the convention progressed, some delegates began to stand out as leaders. Twenty-nine-year-old lawyer and planter Charles Pinckney from South Carolina considered himself the greatest among his peers, speaking frequently during the Constitutional Convention and often problem solving as he spoke. His claim that he drafted the source document for the U.S. Constitution has been refuted. Nevertheless, his work on the final draft was substantial, and he used his influence to ratify the Constitution in his home state in 1788. He would later become a three-time governor of South Carolina and be elected to the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives.
James Madison was another prominent delegate. The Virginian had studied government, law, and theology at the College of New Jersey (now Princeton). Afterward he returned home and involved himself in local politics, being named a delegate to the Virginia Convention (1776). There he helped to create the state constitution. He also served twice in the Virginia House.
Even though he was one of the youngest members of the First Continental Congress, he was recognized as a change agent. His impact extended to the Constitutional Convention, where his copious writings on the limiting qualities of the Articles of Confederation, along with his more than 150 addresses to the 1787 assembly, hastened the work.
Madison was the brains behind the Virginia Plan, a key basis for our current Constitution, and his convention journal affords us an unsurpassed record of these historic sessions. He also was a point man in seeing the Constitution through the Continental Congress.
By the time he arrived to preside over the convention, George Washington was already well known for his victorious command of the Continental Army. Recognizing the ineffectiveness of the Articles of Confederation, Washington, along with Madison and others, favored a unifying central government, and he promoted this ideal in his dignified way during the proceedings.
Perhaps the most famous delegate was Benjamin Franklin, whose limited formal education did not stop him from becoming one of history’s most highly regarded thinkers and inventors and a heralded diplomat on two continents. After apprenticing with his father, who made soap and candles, as a boy he began working with his older half-brother James in the printing business. James had founded one of the first newspapers in the colonies, the New-England Courant, and without any fanfare the periodical included young Benjamin’s first published essays.
Due to disagreements with his brother, Benjamin relocated to Philadelphia in 1723, continuing as a printer with another company for a year before moving to London. Not long after his return to Philadelphia, he took over the Pennsylvania Gazette (1730–48). However, his annual publication Poor Richard’s Almanack (1732–58) was what put him on the literary map. It was such an overwhelming success that only the Bible was read by more colonists. With this early-American best seller came financial independence. While Franklin nurtured his interests in science and politics, his philanthropic efforts established hospitals, libraries, and schools.
Franklin’s first foray into politics was in 1736, when he was appointed a clerk of the colonial legislature. He was subsequently elected as a member, serving from 1751 to 1764. Among his various positions in local government was deputy postmaster of Philadelphia (1737–53). He fulfilled a similar role for all the colonies from 1753 to 1774.
It was during an eleven-year stint in England as a representative of various colonies that Franklin’s eyes were opened to the revolutionary cause, especially when he recognized the tyranny of the Stamp Act. He worked tirelessly for its repeal, and through these efforts became one of America’s leading defenders of freedom. (He also did considerable work in his twilight years to abolish slavery.)
Franklin returned home once more and set to work at the Continental Congress, and in June of 1776 he helped to draft the Declaration of Independence. However, diplomatic duties drew him back to Europe later that year, and he directed various political negotiations with France as a commissioner between 1776 and 1785. His landmark achievement in that role was his collaboration with John Adams and John Jay to facilitate the war-ending Treaty of Paris in 1783.
Back on American soil, though hindered by ill health and age, he attended most sessions of the Constitutional Convention and frequently intervened to quell disputes—a leader among leaders to the final day.
CONFLICT
Although the delegates were largely cooperative and cordial, there was plenty of conflict. Luther Martin of Maryland, a vocal opponent of a centralized government, stood before the assembly arguing against the Virginia Plan for more than three hours. The debate was so heated that Martin and fellow Maryland delegate John Mercer left the convention. Martin actually fought ratification of the Constitution afterward.
The Virginia Plan favored states with large populations and advocated for a bicameral (two-chamber) legislature. The plan called for each state to have proportional representation in each of the legislative bodies. Of course this did not appeal to the states with small populations, since they would be dramatically overpowered by larger states like Virginia. The New Jersey Plan, in contrast, advocated for a unicameral (one-chamber) legislature in which each state would have a single vote regardless of its size and population. The dispute over the two plans was so significant that it threatened to derail the whole process of creating a union. Fortunately, the so-called Great Compromise resolved this conflict by suggesting a bicameral legislature with a House of Representatives that was populated on a proportional basis and a Senate that gave equal votes to each state.
Alexander Hamilton of New York was a major figure in the conflict, pushing a self-named plan that he deemed able to accomplish what neither the Virginia Plan nor the New Jersey Plan could. Delegate William Pierce said of Hamilton, “There is no skimming over the surface of a subject with him, he must sink to the bottom to see what foundation it rests on.”6 Despite his thoroughness, though, Hamilton’s plan was rejected.
The fight over the New Jersey Plan and the Virginia Plan wasn’t the only disagreement. There were intense arguments between the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists before the Constitution was finally ratified by the requisite number of states in 1788. The Federalists wanted a powerful central government. Their primary advocates were Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay, who became the first chief justice of the Supreme Court. They went so far as to write a series of pro-Constitution essays known as The Federalist Papers, in which they eloquently laid out the argument for a strong federal government and indicated how it would work. Many of the papers were published in newspapers throughout the country and played an important role in the ratification of our Constitution.
The Anti-Federalists were just as vocal in their opposition to a strong central government and also wrote a series of papers that were widely disseminated. Their principal concern was that a strong centra
l government would become more like a monarchy and would usurp the power of the people over time. They particularly wanted to prevent the executive branch from becoming too powerful. They eventually assented to the creation of a strong central government, but they insisted on countering it with the first ten amendments to the Constitution, otherwise known as the Bill of Rights. These amendments gave the people strong and specific protections that were not clearly spelled out in the original articles.
In retrospect, both groups were right. The Federalists were correct in predicting that a strong central government would promote the development of a strong nation. Federalism’s economic synergies throughout the nation would create a strong middle class and a powerful economic engine.
On the other hand, the Anti-Federalists correctly predicted that the strong federal government would usurp the power of the states and make them subservient. Fortunately, the Bill of Rights, for which they were responsible, has shielded us from further encroachments on freedom.
Once the Constitution was ratified by the states (a two-thirds majority was the requirement), George Washington was the unanimous electoral-college choice for president in 1789. Intent on providing the inexperienced nation with some much-needed grounding, he traveled throughout the Northeast that year and the South in 1791, in an effort to inform and unify his countrymen regarding the development of and need for the Constitution. The people who lived closer to the capital had been privy to the evolution of this essential document all along. Not so those who lived in more distant regions. And Washington wanted to even the playing field. Today our leaders would do well to learn from Washington’s example of protecting both unity and diversity.
LOOKING FOR TODAY’S LEADERS
Our Constitution was founded by brave and wise men, leaders who had America’s best interests at heart. They knew firsthand the pains of living under tyranny, and they sacrificed much in order to ensure that we, their descendants, would not suffer the same way. Their hard work has paid off, as the Constitution has so far stood the test of time. We should seek to honor their legacy by upholding its principles and emulating their unselfish examples.
The Constitution’s history also teaches us much about the types of leaders we should seek out. The founders had diverse backgrounds, but they tended to be people of accomplishment with real-world experience. Many of them demonstrated that a life filled with political experience was not a prerequisite for brilliant thinking and effective leadership. Instead of continuing to view political experience as the main criterion for a leader, we should instead examine political candidates to see if they understand America’s history. We should draw leaders from all walks of life—business, the military, the church, and medicine. We should look for leaders who have open minds and are able to deal well with conflict. We should follow statesmen who value education. Most of all, we should make sure that we elect only leaders who understand the principles of the Constitution, which we will examine in the next section of this book.
THE SACRED PRINCIPLES
“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.”
This preamble is the Constitution’s introductory statement and sets forth the general principles and goals of our governmental structure. It reveals the hearts of the founders and lays out their goals. It’s the “why” behind the “what” and “how” of the rest of the Constitution, and without it we would have difficulty understanding why the delegates wrote the Constitution as they did.
Although the entire Constitution, including amendments, is less than twenty pages long, many have written thousands of pages analyzing and explaining it. Some of this commentary is useful, but much of it needlessly complicates what is straightforward. If you accept the Constitution’s words at face value, it is relatively easy to understand. If you want to reinterpret its words in order to make its meaning fit your ideology, you will have to do a lot of explaining. Fortunately, the preamble helps prevent this kind of misinterpretation and overcomplication by telling us the Constitution’s overarching goals. If we understand the purpose of the Constitution, it will be harder to be fooled by ideologues who want to twist its words. Instead of following their arguments through all of their twists and turns, we can identify the goal of their interpretation, compare it with the Constitution’s goals, and decide whether the two match.
Before you begin any study of the Constitution’s provisions, it is important to meditate on its main goals. What does it mean to be part of “We the People”? What does “a more perfect Union” look like? Who decides what constitutes the “general Welfare”? Most important, how do we preserve the liberty we’ve inherited so that future generations can enjoy it? Only by embracing the founders’ concepts of justice and tranquillity will we be able to uphold the Constitution in the right way and for the right reasons.
Every American should memorize the preamble and keep its principles in mind while voting. If we elect only officials who understand the Constitution and its goals, America’s future will be safe.
CHAPTER 3
WE THE PEOPLE
“Take a lesson from the ants, you lazybones. Learn from their ways and become wise! Though they have no prince or governor or ruler to make them work, they labor hard all summer, gathering food for the winter.”
Proverbs 6:6–8
“We the People of the United States” are the first words of the Constitution. These words distinguished our government from the many other governments of the world. Many of those nations allowed—and still allow—small groups of elites or a royal family to control the lives of the common people. Our founders had experienced that kind of tyranny, and their first order of business in the Constitution was to prevent it from creeping into the new government. They decreed that the American government always be controlled by the will of the people, not the people by the will of the government. All of the articles and amendments of the Constitution that follow the preamble are dedicated to keeping “we the People” in charge.
“We the People” includes all citizens, both those by birth and those legalized through the immigration processes. Today, unlike in the early days of America, everyone may attain citizenship, regardless of their financial status, ethnicity, gender, or heritage. No one is considered superior or inferior to the rest of the population. Every American is part of the body of voters that rules the country, and no vote is unimportant.
This egalitarian approach is one of the hallmarks of fairness in America and must always be maintained. Unfortunately, “we the People” are often quick to give up our liberties. We quickly forget that many people were willing to give their lives and their resources so that future Americans could be free and empowered. Because so much was sacrificed by so many to provide a nation in which we the people are in charge, we must continue to actively combat all attempts to empower the government at the expense of the people. We exercise our power and fight government encroachment by knowing our rights, being vigilant, voting, and speaking up.
EXERCISING POWER BY KNOWING YOUR RIGHTS
Knowing the law can make all the difference in how you are treated, individually or as a society. I saw the truth of this one time when I was a student at Yale and returned home to Michigan during a break. While there, my family attended a special camp meeting in a rural area, and we parked in a nearby grass lot. Upon returning to the car, we noticed that everyone’s license plates had been removed, supposedly by the landowner, who had left a note informing us where we could retrieve them. At the pickup location I found a long line of people paying stiff fines in order to retrieve their license plates. Since there were no signs prohibiting parking in the lot, I investigated and learned that the people removing the license plates were not the landowner
s and were not government officials. I informed the collectors that by law they were unauthorized to remove state-issued plates and that I would call the state troopers unless they not only returned the plates immediately but also replaced them on the cars. They quickly complied, because I knew the law and so did they. They had been illegally tampering with the license plates in order to make a profit off people who were ill informed.
Similarly, if the American people and their representatives do not know and understand what is in our Constitution, others will take advantage of them. Only when we understand the law of our land can we effectively hold our representatives accountable. Knowledge is power, and we must refuse to be bullied.
EXERCISING POWER BY BEING VIGILANT
Once we understand the Constitution and our rights, we must be vigilant to make sure our leaders uphold those rights. People who are otherwise reasonable and fair can sometimes be corrupted by power, and the longer they have that power, the more corrupt they become. John Adams put it this way: “There is danger from all men. The only Maxim of a free government ought to be to trust no man living with power to endanger the public liberty.”1 We must carefully monitor the actions of anyone we empower through the ballot box, because the power might corrupt them. Sometimes a mere gentle reminder of what abuse of power looks like will be enough to rein in an official. In other cases it might be necessary to recall a representative or vote them out of office in the next election cycle.
It is important to remember that it is a natural human tendency to accrue power and try to dominate others. When we realize this, we will be less likely to demonize those who engage in such activities. On the other hand, we should in no way condone power grabs or manipulation of our Constitution by anyone, regardless of their political affiliation. This is where American values trump partisan politics, and this must always be the case if we are to maintain rule by the people. As soon as we begin overlooking abuse of power by an official who is a member of our own party, we become part of the problem.
A More Perfect Union: What We the People Can Do to Reclaim Our Constitutional Liberties Page 3
