79

SOCIALISM IN THE DEVELOPING WORLD

LILLY KELAN LU

University of North Texas

This chapter reviews the literature on the adoption and development of socialism in developing countries. First, it presents the definition and basic fea-

tures of socialism. Second, it reviews theories that attempt to explain why underdeveloped countries adopt socialism, discussing specific countries as examples. Third, it addresses the challenges faced by the third world in transitioning from socialism. Fourth, it reviews the variants of classical Marxism in the third world, with emphasis on the differences between socialism in developing countries and classical Marxism. Fifth, the chapter discusses the potential benefits and problems of revised socialism in the developing world.

Why Did the Developing World Adopt Socialism?

Socialism, according to Baradat (1997), is defined as a system that grants the ownership of production to the public and provides the public with a social welfare system while pursuing material abundance, equality, and sharing for its people. The third world refers to the countries that were “peripheral to the center of world capitalism and subordinated to [it] through colonialism or various forms of imperialist or ‘neo-colonial’ control and penetration, and where indigenous capitalism was weakly developed” (White, Murray, & White, 1983, p. 4).

Various scholars (Baradat, 1997; Desfosses & Levesque, 1975; Elliott, 1962; Fagen, Deere, & Coraggio, 1986; Kautsky, 1968; Kurzman, 1963; White et al., 1983) have investigated the reasons socialism was adopted by the developing world. Generally, the reasons can be divided into four categories. First, the nature of socialism emphasized immediate economic growth, which could help the third world develop within a relatively short period. Second, the nature of socialism was anti-imperialism and antiexploitation. This reflected the third world’s radical response to hostile threat and even military aggression from the global imperialists and its economic dependence on the developed world. The third reason is a politicalcultural argument that claims that the traditional societies in the third world were more compatible with socialism. Fourth, the Soviet Union’s efforts to influence developing countries led to the development of socialism in such countries.

Economic Development

First, the adoption of socialism reflected the desire of the intellectuals in the third world to explore a model for improving economic development. According to Kautsky (1968), it was the modern elite (or intellectuals) in the third world, and not the general population, that was attracted to communist models. In contrast, traditional elites (including aristocratic rulers, big landowners, and

673

674 • POLITICAL THOUGHT

the clergy) tended to regard communist models as a threat, and the masses (including peasantry, urban petite bourgeoisie, and a modern working class) were not broad-minded enough to understand the communist models. The modern elites, as a group, absorbed their values, not from their native traditional society, but from other industrially advanced societies. The adopted values mainly include an emphasis on enhancing the economy; increasing wealth; and improving social equality, education, and political participation. Further dispersion of these values started prevailing in developing countries via universities, armies, bureaucracies, and trade unions.

Second, although the goals set by the intellectuals in the third world were adopted from the Western world, according to Desfosses and Levesque (1975), the Western way of achieving these goals was slow compared with the communist model. The modern elite believed the socialist model was more applicable because it provided an economic growth plan that promoted much faster economic development.

Third, communist models promoted rapid industrialization under the lead of the intellectuals (Kautsky, 1968). Communist regimes share similarities with the regimes in other developing countries because in both cases, intellectuals led similar social sections, had similar opponents, and were pursuing similar values. Another reason the socialist model appealed to intellectuals in the third world is the potential opportunities it offered for the intellectuals to obtain power and prestige.

Anti-Imperialism and Anti-Exploitation

Another reason for the developing world to adopt socialism is the nature of socialism, anti-imperialism, and anti-exploitation. First, the third world countries faced the problem of economic dependence on developed countries (Desfosses & Levesque, 1975; Fagen et al., 1986). Most of the smaller markets of the third world relied on exports of cash crops and/or natural resources and were thus more vulnerable to changes in international markets. The people in the developing world had strong nationalistic desires for independence and selfdetermination and for economic and political development. Socialism satisfies the need of developing countries to reverse their lack of development and to strive for freedom.

Second, socialism served as a model for third world people and leaders to deal with their ambivalence toward industrialization (White et al., 1983). In these countries, socialism not only provided hope of gaining the benefits that were achieved by capitalism and industrialization, but it also eliminated the exploitation that was prevalent in the capitalist model. Moreover, socialism assured that the people’s representatives represented the people’s best interests.

The Compatibility Between Traditional Societies and Socialism

Another reason some developing countries adopted socialism was that these countries perceived socialism as being compatible with traditional societies (Desfosses & Levesque, 1975). This compatibility mainly focused on the nonexistence of classes. According to classic Marxism, the essence of socialism is that the victory of the proletariat is caused by class struggle. Many intellectuals in the third world claimed that there were no issues of class in their countries after independence. Moreover, these intellectuals argued that a proletariat was not a necessity for realizing socialism. They also argued that in the developing world, the essential issue is to mobilize the general public for political activities instead of depending on class struggle led by the proletariat.

Soviet Influence

The adoption of socialism in the third world is due not only to the appeal of socialism itself but also to Soviet efforts to influence developing countries in order to win support against the Western world. Kurzman (1963) provided some evidence for this argument. First, Communists’ emphasis on the third world did not start until the end of World War II. After the war, the Communists’ influence in the underdeveloped countries ramped up. The major achievement by the Communists was the adoption of communism in China in 1948. Communism became established in North Vietnam, Cuba, Laos, South Vietnam, Indonesia, and the Indian state of Kerala. In the Middle East, communism was set up in Syria in 1955 and Iraq in 1959. In Africa, communism was adopted in Guinea, Ghana, the formerly Belgian-controlled Congo, and Kenya.

What Were the Barriers to the Socialist Transition in the Developing World?

According to Fagen et al. (1986), socialist transition movements pursue three major goals. The first goal is to produce and redistribute sufficient wealth to satisfy the people’s basic needs. The second goal is to provide equal opportunity to the people in pursuing improvement in income, justice, and culture. The third goal is to reestablish the relationship between the state and the whole society and thus mobilize the public for political participation.

For Fagen et al. (1986), there are three barriers to socialist transition in the third world: the characteristics of the international system, the particular difficulties faced by countries with small and peripheral economies, and the scarcity of suitable models for the third world’s transitions.

The first problem that influences the third world’s transition is the global system (Fagen et al., 1986). To begin

with, the global system was dominated by capitalist states during the end of the 20th century. Capitalists wrote the rules of global games such as trade, finance, and investment. For the socialist countries, it was almost impossible to participate in these global games while isolating themselves from global prices, markets, technology, and tastes that were established by the capitalist countries. Although multipolarity (i.e., the presence of more than two roughly equal superpowers who dominate world politics) played a secondary role in providing the third world with opportunities such as political, military, and ideological leverage, multipolarity was not the fundamental arena of third world development. For example, with respect to issues such as trade, finance, technology, investment, and foreign aid, the world was more of a unipolar system than a multipolar one. Moreover, the world’s unipolar feature was reflected in the cultural domain. In the realm of consumption, demand by the countries in the world became increasingly homogeneous (e.g., demand for Coca-Cola and blue jeans), which reflected the sole dominance of advanced capitalism.

The second problem is the particular difficulties faced by countries with small and peripheral economies (Fagen et al., 1986). To begin with, the development of these small and peripheral economies was firmly constrained by the unipolar system. These economies had no capacity to set prices in trade, to invent technology, or to accumulate their own domestic savings. Therefore, they had to depend heavily on the developed countries. Moreover, the small and peripheral economies have been influenced deeply by the culture of developed countries. The third world’s traditional culture has been penetrated by Western culture and the Western lifestyle. The changing nature of culture made it difficult for the third world to bridge the gap between its own traditional culture and socialism.

The developing countries’ efforts to get access to the international core market and to strive for a better export environment have been offset by increasingly more strict business barriers in the developed world for the protection of their local economy. Due to low domestic savings, third world countries needed low-cost and loosely restricted loans. However, the advanced, industrialized countries preferred and bargained to lend to developing countries in order to maximize their own profits. In sum, the highly developed countries occupy much more advantageous positions in the global market than do small and peripheral countries.

Given the harsh international political and economic environment for smaller and peripheral economies, it was even more difficult for those smaller and peripheral economies that decided to transition to socialist regimes. These socialist-transition countries bore two heavy burdens. First, similar to nontransition countries, socialisttransition states needed to struggle for survival and/or success in economic development and cultural preservation. Second, they needed to make fundamental transformations

Socialism in the Developing World • 675

in their domestic political, economic, and social systems in order to pursue social justice. Moreover, the countries undergoing fundamental transformations in their socialist transition were faced with political, economic, and military pressures from the advanced, industrialized, capitalist countries, who regarded the socialist transition in smaller and peripheral economies as a threat to their established rules. The threat perceived by the capitalist countries was understandable because socialist transitions usually happened in groups and tended to ally with established socialist countries. More important, these socialist transitions challenged the founding logic of capitalism and thus threatened the dominant position of capitalism in the world. Besides the barriers set by the imperialists and their allies within the socialist countries, socialist transition movements faced potentially intrinsic problems (Fagen et al., 1986). First, although the old global system was under attack, it was an integrated and stable economic and political system, which was important for wealth accumulation. However, socialist transition movements interrupted that stability while being accompanied by class struggle, which was not beneficial for economic growth unless a strong dictator could keep the chaos in control.

The third barrier was a lack of practical socialist theory for the third world countries to refer to during their transitions (Fagen et al., 1986). Although Marxist theory analyzed the conditions that would assist socialist transitions, Marxism did not explicitly illustrate how to transition to socialism and what socialism was. Because different countries had different situations and experiences, it was difficult to apply the models promoted by Mao or Lenin to other developing countries.

The Variants of Socialism

in the Developing World

According to Baradat (1997), since Marx’s death, three major varieties of socialist movement developed. The first variant is the orthodox school, which defended Marx’s work against any significant revisions. The second variant is the revisionists and the Fabians, who attacked the major Marxist theories and preferred a smooth and peaceful approach to achieving the goals of socialism. This school has been adopted mostly by European countries and the United States. The third variant is Marxism–Leninism. Based on Marxism, the ideology proposed by Lenin explained the reasons for wrong predictions in Marxism. Moreover, Marxism–Leninism emphasized the guidance of an elite group because of the lack of class consciousness among the proletariat. The elite group would play a leading role in eliminating rebellion after the fall of the capitalist system. Because the proletariat would replace the bourgeois rulers and continue to grow, the proletariat would eventually become the sole economic class in the society, which would approach the ideal plan in classic Marxism.

676 • POLITICAL THOUGHT

The reasons third world leaders chose their respective variants of socialism in their adoption of elements of Marxism, Leninism, or Maoism has been analyzed by Desfosses and Levesque (1975) and Fagen et al. (1986) as follows. The first reason was the third world intellectuals’ nationalistic determination to avoid subjugating their country to absolute control of socialists after getting rid of the long-term absolute control by the imperialists (Desfosses & Levesque, 1975). Second, the continuing failure of capitalism in smaller and peripheral economies was another reason socialist regimes were attractive to the third world (Fagen et al., 1986). The failure of capitalism to satisfy the material needs and provide social justice for people in the third world made socialism an attractive alternative. Moreover, increasingly people in the third world realized that the world was under the control of the advanced capitalist countries, which set global rules and reaped as many benefits as possible from the third world. In contrast, socialism promised to eliminate the old global rules and to bring social justice and rationality through policies such as public ownership and centralized economic planning. Third, leaders in the third world thought the socialist model would speed up their economic growth and allow their countries to eventually catch up with the industrialized capitalist countries (Desfosses & Levesque, 1975). The goal of pursuing economic development in the third world had superseded the goal of realizing socialist ideology. Fourth, people in the third world desired to preserve their traditional culture and national characteristics and strove to minimize the interruptions and distortions of industrialization and modernization (Desfosses & Levesque, 1975).

Because of these reasons, intellectuals in third world countries were selective when adopting classical Marxism, Leninism, or Maoism. Therefore, no uniform socialist model was observed among all the developing countries but rather a variety of versions of socialism.

The major differences between socialism in the developing world and classic Marxism have been investigated from two major perspectives. White et al. (1983) focused on the differences between revolutionary socialism in the third world and the classic Marxism. Kautsky (1968) investigated the differences between the Soviet model and the goals of intellectuals in underdeveloped countries in the post–World War II period.

The differences between revolutionary socialism in the third world and classic Marxism have been summarized by White et al. (1983) as follows. First, revolutionary socialism succeeded in the underdeveloped countries but not in advanced capitalist countries as predicted by Marx. Second, socialism in the third world was not the heir of capitalism but rather was a historical alternative. Third, socialism in the third world was not unifying and consolidating the international working class among the welldeveloped industrial countries but rather was facilitating radical nationalism in underdeveloped countries. Fourth,

revolutionary socialism was not established on the cultural and economic basis of highly developed capitalism but rather drove accelerated, delayed development under unfavorable conditions at home and abroad. Fifth, the power of revolutionary socialism did not depend on the proletariat but rather on existing classes and strata, mainly including the peasantry and the petite bourgeoisie.

More specifically, Kautsky (1968) and Baradat (1997) investigated the differences between the Soviet model and the models followed by the developing countries. First, within the classic model, the proletarian revolution of the communists’ Marxian symbolism did not appeal to the developing countries. In spite of some changes in communist symbols in the Soviet model after World War II, “revolution” and “proletarian revolution” were still regarded by the third world as important communist symbols. However, some policies in the third world were opposed to revolution and proletarian revolution.

Second, although at the beginning the classic model appealed to intellectuals in the third world, inflexible obedience to Marxian doctrine and related policies created in developing countries an image of communists as proletarian revolutionaries. Moreover, this image made them appear to be attempting to win proletarian supporters and searching for capitalist enemies in the Western world. This actually weakened the appeal of the Soviet model in the developing countries. However, because of its incompatibility with actual developments in the third world, Marxian doctrine and related policies started to decay in the third world while the appeal of the Soviet model increased.

Third, although the classic Soviet model appealed to the intellectuals who led anticolonial movements in developing countries, these intellectuals were very different from Soviet intellectuals. The intellectuals in the third world were a strong prorevolutionary group. Although they were committed to building a strong and new society, they were afraid of deep industrialization because of their fear of losing power. The successful industrialization in the Soviet Union led to the replacement of revolutionary intellectuals with managerial intellectuals.

Case Studies for Six

Socialist Developing Countries

Six case studies further illustrate the reasons the third world adopted variants of socialism and the characteristics of these variants. The cases are Cuba, Iraq, China, Yugoslavia, Libya, and North Korea.

Cuba

Several scholars (Baradat, 1997; Bideleux, 1985; Desfosses & Levesque, 1975; White et al., 1983) have used Cuba as a case study to investigate its variant of socialism. Socialism was adopted by Cuba under Fidel

Castro and his followers to build socialism with Cuban national characteristics. By taking into consideration Cuba’s relevant historical and international experience, Castro and his followers foresaw a break with the United States after a radical Cuban revolution. In spite of the close interdependence between Cuba and the United States, Castro and his followers regarded the intertwining of the United States and Cuba as a barrier to any substantial structural transformation of Cuban society. After the failed U.S. invasion of the Bay of Pigs in April 1961, Castro and his followers transformed, step by step, their domestic and international programs simultaneously, achieving a complete transition to socialism and a turning toward the Soviet Union.

Moreover, the political leaders perceived that some of the principles of Marxism–Leninism fit quite well with the values gained from their struggle against ousted Cuban president Fulgencio Batista. These values included activism, voluntarism, and elitism. Voluntarism in particular has been emphasized in socialist ideology with Cuban characteristics.

In addition, Cuba’s Communist Party played an important role in allying the country with the Soviet Union. The alliance with the Soviet Union equipped Cuba with important political strategies. In spite of this, the essence of Cuban socialism was not provided by the Soviet Union.

Before adopting socialism, Cuba was a country whose public was not only accustomed to extensive government intervention but also very active in political participation. The introduction of socialism brought about several changes. First, government expanded its intervention by controlling the ownership of all the means of production. Second, to a certain extent, the new government both encouraged more political participation and tried to keep the participation under the control of the government.

Cuba’s socialism had its own characteristics. First, the development of a revolutionary Communist Party of Cuba was late and slow. According to Baradat (1997), Castro did not become a Marxist–Leninist until he came into office. Communism as an ideology and Cuba’s Communist Party as an organization were used by Castro as an instrument to control the country. Therefore, the Communist Party itself in Cuba did not enjoy as much authority as that enjoyed in communist countries such as Soviet Union and China. In contrast, Cuban socialism was built on the personal charisma of Castro, which became a barrier to the future transfer of leadership through the Communist Party system. Second, the Cuban government encouraged the widespread use of economic collectivization, with emphasis on agricultural production, especially sugar production. Third, Cuba used moral and nonmaterial incentives to motivate the public employed in production. Nevertheless, these moral incentives were closely related to promises of health care and retirement benefits and priority in accessing political positions.

Socialism in the Developing World • 677

Iraq

Socialism began developing in Iraq in 1948 when Iraq had increased contacts with socialist countries. The deepening of socialism in Iraq was fueled by nationalism (Desfosses & Levesque, 1975). With increasingly negative feelings in the Arab world toward the West, more and more Iraqis regarded the West as exploitive and preferred socialism over capitalism in Iraq. In addition, some of the ideas and values of socialism were incorporated into Iraqi nationalist ideology, including nationalist issues with respect to Palestine, the Israeli issue, and the unity of the Arab world.

The leading party among the Arab nationalist parties in promoting socialism was the Baath party. The Baath’s notion of socialism evolved from utopian communism to a mix of Marxist scientific socialism and nationalism. The Baathist approach to establishing socialism in Iraq had its own characteristics and thus was called Arab socialism, which indicated that it was not derived from Marxism but rather from a contrasting ideology. First, instead of using the term revolution in their struggle to build socialism, Baathists used the term coup and regarded it as the only way to achieve the renaissance of nationalism and the establishment of socialism in Arab countries. Second, although the Iraqi constitution claimed ownership of all property belonging to the Iraqi people, equal distribution of all economic resources among the people, and the state’s control of the means of production, private property rights were not outlawed but were instead protected. All Iraqi citizens enjoyed the freedom to own real estate as long as the amount of property owned by a citizen did not exceed the amount used directly by the citizen and was not used in a way that exploited others. Third, under the leadership of the Baathists, social class differences were to be eliminated and a more fair and equal social order was to be established.

China

The socialist variant in China—Maoism—was admired by a large number of developing countries (Baradat, 1997). Maoism was an attempt to adjust classic Marxism– Leninism to Chinese traditional culture, agrarian economy, and guerrilla war (Baradat, 1997). According to White et al. (1983), Maoism reflected China’s break with Eastern European models of state socialism, which represented either hierarchical bureaucratism (e.g., the Soviet Union) or market socialism (e.g., Yugoslavia). In contrast, Maoism was built on the initial socialist values, including equality, participation, and collectivism. The Chinese model under the guidance of Maoism was promoted by development experts as a good example for other developing countries to follow. According to Baradat (1997), compared with classic Marxism–Leninism, Maoism has several unique characteristics.

678 • POLITICAL THOUGHT

The first distinguishing feature of Maoism is populism. Mao and his followers emphasized the detrimental role of peasants in the victory of the Chinese revolution. In contrast, classic Marxism identified the proletariat as the leading force of communist revolution. In order to reconcile Maoism with classic Marxism, Mao highlighted the virtues of the peasants, such as purity, simplicity, and flawlessness, as the fundamental strengths of the Chinese people. Moreover, during the Cultural Revolution, Mao forced urban sophisticates to work in rural farms for the purpose of “learning from the people” (Sobhe, 1982, p. 273).

Second, Maoism emphasized ideological purity over economic training. This characteristic of Maoism revised the economic determinism of classic Marxism. According to Mao, peasants can be proletarianized through both proletarian mentality education and economic experience. However, this transformation of the peasants did not require them to leave their land. permanent revolution.

The third feature of Maoism is In spite of the vague references to the definition of permanent revolution by Marx and Lenin, Mao, more radically, emphasized permanent revolution instead of sustaining a status quo. According to Mao, permanent revolution and constant violence were needed along the road to socialism because great progress was born from social disorder. In Maoist logic, socialism and capitalism can never coexist peacefully.

The fourth feature of Maoism is its rejection of elitism, specifically Lenin’s dependence on the Communist Party to lead the revolution. This principle arose from a concern that the fruits of the Chinese revolution might fall into the hands of bureaucracies instead of the people. Therefore, Mao emphasized that the people were the ones who should be trusted to attain the final goals of the revolution under the guidance of communist ideology because the people were red intrinsically. By thus mobilizing the people, China underwent several campaigns, such as the antilandlord campaign (1949–1952), the first 5-Year Plan (1953– 1957), the Hundred Flowers Campaign (1957), the Great Leap Forward (1958–1960), and the Great Cultural Revolution (1966–1976). tolerance of the

The fifth principle of Maoism is its

bourgeoisie. The major reason for this tolerance was the poor economic situation in China during the early years of communist power in 1948 and 1949. Instead of sticking to the classic Marxist doctrine of socializing the economy, Mao learned the lesson from Lenin that immediate socialization of the economy is dangerous. Rather, the bourgeoisie could contribute to the stabilization of the Chinese economy. The real enemies were those who exploited the Chinese people, mainly landlords and imperialist capitalists. Within Maoism, anti-imperialism was closely incorporated into Chinese nationalism.

The last distinguishing feature of Maoism is guerrilla warfare. Classic Marxism and Leninism stressed the short duration of revolutions. In contrast to Marx’s anticipation of spontaneous revolution and Lenin’s conspiratorial

revolution (his use of secret operations, among other tactics; Lee, 2003), Mao expected an extended period of revolutions in the developing world.

Yugoslavia

Yugoslavia’s variant of socialism—Titoism—was born of Yugoslav leader (Josip Broz) Tito’s resistance against the Soviet Union’s strong pressure to force Yugoslavia to conform (Baradat, 1997). In spite of his original firm support for Stalin, Tito eventually led Yugoslavia to break out of the Soviet bloc in 1948 and benefit from trade with both the Western and the Eastern bloc.

Although Tito split from the Soviet bloc, he continued to be committed to Marxism (Baradat, 1997). However, he made some revisions to classic Marxism–Leninism. In contrast to Lenin’s stress on violence and Marx’s and Lenin’s idea of permanent revolution, Tito’s version of communism de-emphasized the use of violence in socialist development. According to Tito, as soon as socialism developed to an advanced phase, violence was not needed. This made Tito much more moderate than the classic communists. Furthermore, Tito promoted coexistence and active cooperation with capitalist countries.

According to Tito, different countries have different interpretations of socialism (Baradat, 1997). Tito emphasized that the threats to socialism came not from imperialism but from socialist countries’ overly centralized domestic systems. In contrast to Marx, Tito realized that overcentralization tended to cause the growth of bureaucracy and the possible exploitation of the masses.

In order to resolve the problem of overcentralization, Tito decentralized Yugoslavia’s political and economic organization, a design called market socialism. First, he encouraged private ownership and control, as well as the decentralization of industry. According to Tito, although workers would directly control the factories in the most advanced stage of socialism, the nationalization of industries was an important first step in reaching that stage. In the future, advanced socialist societies should be based on social control rather than state control. Second, Tito decided to decentralize the dominant rule of the Communist Party. According to Marx, political institutions would eventually disappear in a classless society, leaving only an economic bureaucracy. Tito did not agree with Marx on this point but insisted that the Communist Party should always be the leader of the system in spite of the absence of the need for centralized economic control. Third, Tito also decentralized the governmental structure by dividing the country into six republics and two autonomous provinces, pushing the government toward federalism.

Libya

Socialist revolution in Libya was brought about by Mu‘ammar Muhammad al-Gadhafi and his followers in

1969 after overthrowing the king of Libya (Desfosses & Levesque, 1975). According to Gadhafi, the socialist revolution in Libya was guided by two basic values: social justice and Islamic socialism. The adoption of socialism in Libya, as elsewhere, involved revisions to classic Marxism–Leninism. The major basis for Libya’s revisions was Gadhafi’s belief in the compatibility between socialism and the fundamental Islamic philosophy. He thus regarded socialism as an indigenous political ideology in Libya rather than one adopted from the outside world. Moreover, the approach to private property rights and widespread nationalization valued in classic Marxism–Leninism were perceived by Gadhafi as in accordance with Muslim tradition because Islamic law endorsed private property rights and nationalization without damage or injury. Despite these compatibilities between the Libyan socialist model and the classic communist model, Libya’s model also exhibited some important variations.

First, the development of socialism in Libya was based on two basic values, social justice and modernization. According to Desfosses and Levesque (1975), socialism in Libya was regarded more as a value system than as an economic system because the socialism pursued in Libya aimed to realize the true dignity of human beings through political participation and through ensuring an acceptable standard of living. Libyan socialism regarded socialism as the fruit of class cooperation, rather than class struggle as suggested by classic Marxism–Leninism.

Second, Libya’s history and economic situation contributed to Gadhafi’s special economic policies (Desfosses & Levesque, 1975). Because of the country’s low level of economic development, domestic capitalists in Libya were not considered as an enemy to be eliminated. In addition, because of Libya’s experience of exploitation by foreign imperialist powers, Gadhafi differentiated between domestic and foreign capitalists. Foreign capitalists, because of their exploitative nature, were regarded as incompatible with Libya’s national interests and were nationalized by the government. Domestic capitalists, on the other hand, were not regarded as enemies of the people unless they were exploitative. Thus, under Libyan socialism, citizens were allowed to own capital privately and to invest their capital freely as long as they were not exploitative.

Third, Gadhafi realized that the small Libyan bureaucracy lacked the education, expertise, and manpower necessary to modernize the nation (Desfosses & Levesque, 1975). As a result, nationalization is not the whole answer to either imperialism or lack of development. Gadhafi envisioned a Libyan agricultural and industrial economy that would achieve the complete potential of Libya’s economy while ensuring the control of the people over the basic means of production. Libya’s petroleum wealth should be used to modernize the country and improve the life of all its citizens, not to enrich foreign capitalists or a few Libyans.

Socialism in the Developing World • 679

North Korea

North Korean socialism was brought about by Kim Il Sung, who was the leader of both the state and its Communist Party until his death in 1994 (Baradat, 1997). North Korea’s pattern of socialism was not the same as that of the Eastern European countries that followed the Soviet Union. The special characteristics of North Korean socialism were mainly reflected in the extreme ideological, political, and economic isolation of North Korea.

Because Marxism–Leninism was accused of not being able to solve all the problems in Korea, Kim Il Sung did not allow anyone except himself to read the classic works by Marx, Lenin, and Stalin. Moreover, Kim Il Sung prevented the public from accessing any outside information (Baradat, 1997). Through language reform beginning in 1945, North Koreans were cut off from their history because younger generations could not read texts written before 1945. Because they were not informed about North Korea’s liberation from the Japanese by the Soviet Union or the assistance provided by the Chinese army in the war against the United States in 1950, people in North Korea firmly believed the ideology that Kim Il Sung was the sole leader of world revolution.

Economically, North Korea carried out a harsh selfdependence policy, called juche, defined as “a line of economic construction for meeting by home production the needs for manufactured goods and farm produce necessary for making the country rich and strong and improving the people’s labour and one’s own national resources” (White et al., 1983, p. 129). Under this policy, North Korea isolated itself almost entirely from the world economy. In spite of its severe lack of two important resources, oil and coal, North Korea pushed the public to work overtime and developed technology transformations to structure its national economy so as to minimize its dependence on and vulnerability to the external world for the long term.

Third, North Korean socialism was built within a militarized society (Baradat, 1997). Since the Korean War, from 1950 to 1953, North Koreans had maintained a permanent militarization against South Korean and U.S. armies. The armed forces in North Korean society were used as an instrument of socialization. Meanwhile, family and educational institutions were also used as important instruments of socialization. Therefore, the entire North Korean society became militarily oriented.

Problems of the Variants of Socialism in the Developing World

The first problem in some variants of socialism lies in the combination of nationalism and socialism. According to White et al. (1983), although nationalism helped the third world catch up with the development of industrialized countries, intense nationalism sometimes turned into chauvinism (as in Pol Pot’s Cambodia) and exclusionism (as in North

680 • POLITICAL THOUGHT

Korea). Moreover, White et al. (1983) found that the context of military threat and conflicts before and after revolution led to nationwide militarization both ideologically and institutionally and to an intense level of security consciousness. This problem accounted for the stagnation of “socialist internationalism” and the frequent conflicts among socialist countries.

Second, several scholars have found that it was problematic for some developing countries to establish socialism on the foundation of their traditions. Desfosses and Levesque (1975) suggest that the issue of combining peasants’ collective traditions and socialist agricultural collectivization not only contradicted some classic doctrines of Marxism, Leninism, and Maoism but also slowed agricultural development in third world countries. According to Desfosses and Levesque (1975), the similarity between the peasants’ communal tradition and socialist agricultural collectivization had been exaggerated by third world socialists. For example, in Africa, the communal tradition among peasants was mainly reflected in their cooperation in consumption but not in production. However, it was cooperation in production that was needed to make communal agriculture the foundation of development. Therefore, building socialism in Africa on the peasants’ communal tradition actually violated some basic principles of classic Marxism, Leninism, and Maoism. Moreover, even if socialists in Africa tried to change cooperation in consumption into cooperation in production, there was still no guarantee that the agricultural sector would provide sufficient surplus for the development of industry. Rather, radical changes in the system of production, such as changing the traditional systems of land ownership, kinship, and duties within a community, actually slowed down agricultural development.

Third, although the goals (such as equality, social justice, and the nationalization of industries) pursued by third world socialists helped third world countries accumulate social support, the disappointment among the public for any failure to reach those goals posed a grave threat to socialist regimes (Fagen et al., 1986). Moreover, because the theories of socialism emphasized its advancement in industrialization and higher efficiency, the public in third world socialist countries tended to overestimate the industrial capability of their countries and to de-emphasize the importance of the peasants.

Fourth, according to Kurzman (1963), among underdeveloped countries, communists share similar strategies: left strategy and right strategy. Under the left strategy, communists in each country would fight against noncommunists and accuse them of assisting imperialism. In contrast, the right strategy was usually applied when there was a common threat to both communists and noncommunists. The communists would ally with noncommunists to fight the common enemy, as the Soviet Union had done when it was threatened by Nazi Germany before the end of World War II. In most underdeveloped countries, communism was spreading by

first using the right strategy to cooperate with noncommunists in defeating common enemies and then using the left strategy to eliminate the noncommunists within the country. This is the tactic of deception described in Kurzman (1963). Using this approach, communist propaganda tended to subordinate the Marxist doctrine to the fight against “Western imperialism.”

Future Directions

According to Baradat (1997), the fall of Marxism– Leninism, Stalinism, Titoism, and Maoism does not mean that socialism itself will fall. Some scholars have claimed that there is recent evidence of the possible return of socialism in the former Soviet Union and in eastern Europe (Baradat, 1997). Baradat suggests, first, that after experiencing free education, universal medical care, and social protection, people from many socialist countries tend not to give them up, given that not many countries are able to deal with the uncertainties and insecurities of individualism. Second, because government can play an important role that cannot be filled by individuals, socialism has a future with its goal of a decent standard of living for every person, along with protection by the state from predation by economically stronger members of society.

Abdel Malek, A. (1968). Egypt: Military society. New York:
Vintage.
Baradat, L. P. (1997). Political ideologies: Their origins and
impact. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Bideleux, R. (1985). Communism and development. New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Desfosses, H., & Levesque, J. (Eds.). (1975). Socialism in the
third world. New York: Praeger.
Draper, T. (1965). Castroism: Theory and practice. New York: Praeger.
Elliott, J. R. (1962). The appeal of communism in the underde
veloped nations. Dubuque, IA: W. C. Brown.
Fagen, R. R., Deere, C. D., & Coraggio, J. L. (Eds.). (1986).
Transition and development: Problems of third world social
ism. New York: Monthly Review Press.
Griffith, S. (1961).	Mao Tse tung: On guerrilla warfare. New York:
Praeger.	Arab nationalism: An anthology. Berkeley:
Haim, S. (1964).
References and Further Readings

University of California Press.

Jacobs, M., Kent, A., & Watkins, K. (2003).

Hinton, H. C. (1973). An introduction to Chinese politics. New York: Praeger. Progressive global

ization: Toward an international social democracy. London: Fabian Society.

Judt, T. (2009). What is living and what is dead in social democ racy. The New York Review of Books, 59(2), 86 96.

Kaple, D. A. (1994). Dream of a red factory: The legacy of high Stalinism in China. New York: Oxford University Press.

Kautsky, J. H. (1968). Communism and the politics of develop ment: Persistent myths and changing behavior. New York: Wiley. Political trends in the Arab world: The role

Khadduri, M. (1970).

Kitschelt, H. (1994).

of ideas and ideals in politics. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. The transformation of European social

Krugman, P. (2010, January 10). Learning from Europe.

democracy. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. The New

York Times. Retrieved May 26, 2010, from http://www

.nytimes.com/2010/01/11/opinion/11krugman.html?scp 1&sq Learning%20from%20Europe&st cse

Kurzman, D. (1963). Subversion of the innocents: Patterns of communist penetration in Africa, the Middle East, and Asia.

New York: Random House.

Marquand, D. (1993). After socialism [Special issue].

Lee, S. (2003). Lenin and revolutionary Russia. Hong Kong: Routledge. Political

Marshall, T. H. (1950).

Studies, 41. Citizenship and social class and other

essays. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Marx, K., & Engels, F. (1848). Manifesto of the Communist

Party. Retrieved May 26, 2010, from www.Marxists.org/ archive/marx/works/1848/communist manifesto/index.htm Moody, P. R. (1983). Chinese politics after Mao. New York: Oxford University Press. The future of

Paterson, W. E., & Thomas, A. H. (Eds.). (1986).

social democracy. New York: Oxford University Press. Post, K., & Wright, P. (1989). Socialism and underdevelopment.

London: Routledge.

Przeworski, A. (2001). Socialism and social democracy. In J. Krieger & M. E. Crahan (Eds.), The Oxford companion to

Socialism in the Developing World • 681

politics of the world (2nd ed., pp. 775 780). Oxford, UK:
Oxford University Press.
Rauch, G. von. (1972). A history of Soviet Russia (6th ed.).
New York: Praeger.
Robinson, C. J. (1983). Black Marxism. Chapel Hill: University
of North Carolina Press.
Rozman, G. (Ed.). (1992). Dismantling communism. Washington,
DC: Woodrow Wilson Center Press.
Sasson, D. (1995). One hundred years of socialism. New York:
New Press.
Short, M. I. (1993). Love and religion in Marxist Cuba. New
Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.
Singleton, F. (1976). Twentieth century Yugoslavia. New York:
Columbia University Press.
Sobhe, K. (1982). Education in revolution: Is Iran duplicating the
Chinese Cultural Revolution? Comparative Education,
18(3), 271	280.
Steger, M. (Ed.). (1996). Selected writings of Eduard Bernstein,
1900 1921. Atlantic Highlands, NJ: Humanities Press.
Steger, M. B. (1997). The quest for evolutionary socialism.
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Suarez, A. (1967). Cuba: Castroism and communism. Cambridge:
MIT Press.
Tilton, T. (1990). The political theory of Swedish social democ
racy. Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press.
Townsend, J. R. (1974). Politics in China. Boston: Little, Brown.
White, G., Murray, R., & White, C. (Eds.). (1983). Revolutionary
socialist development in the third world. Lexington:
University Press of Kentucky.
Woodward, S. L. (1995). Socialist unemployment: The political
economy of Yugoslavia. Ewing, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Yan, S. (1995).	The Chinese reassessment of socialism. Ewing,

NJ: Princeton University Press.

PART VI

AMERICAN POLITICS

80

FOUNDING OF THE

AMERICAN POLITICAL SYSTEM

RICHARD J. HARDY

Western Illinois University

The American political system did not suddenly appear. It has evolved through a unique and complex convergence of countless civic actors, politi-

cal ideas, and significant events. To grasp the complexities of our unique political system, it is important to understand the roots of our polity, how it has emerged, and some of the major theories concerning its development. This chapter begins with discussion of the major elements that influenced the founders of our republic. Those influences include the early colonial experience, the British legal system, natural rights philosophy, classical republicanism, and religious teachings. Next, the chapter examines the sequence of events and underlying factors leading to the American Revolution, the Declaration of Independence, and the Articles of Confederation. Attention finally turns to the United States Constitution and its framers, underlying concepts, theories, and remarkable features.

Major Influences on American

Constitutional Development

Influence of British Legal History

The American political system was obviously influenced by British legal history. The government of Great Britain is not based on a single written constitution. Rather, the British legal system is composed of an amalgam of

political documents, common law, customs, and acts of the Parliament. The most influential documents in the development of British government are the Magna Carta (1215), the Petition of Rights (1628), and the English Bill of Rights (1689). The following is a brief description of each of these landmark documents and how they influenced subsequent American political documents.

The Magna Carta (1215), or Great Charter, is the foundation on which modern British government is built. Originally, England was ruled by an absolute monarch, one who had virtually unrestrained control over his or her subjects. In 1215, the feudal barons forced King John to concede a list of rights to the English nobility. The Magna Carta’s 63 chapters are provisions calling for limited government and the preservation of certain personal and property rights. Chapter 39, for example, stipulates, “No free man shall be taken or imprisoned . . . except by the lawful judgment of his equals or [and] by the law of the land.” The clause “judgment of his peers” refers to trial by jury, the right later guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution’s Sixth Amendment, and the idiom law of the land becomes the foundation for the concept of due process of law, a phrase later found in the U.S. Constitution’s Fifth and Fourteen Amendments.

Monarchial concessions were further made in 1628, when the Parliament forced King Charles I to sign the Petition of Rights. This document contains a list of grievances that parallels many of the complaints chronicled in

685

686 • AMERICAN POLITICS

the Declaration of Independence and an assortment of rights contained in the U.S. Constitution (1787). For example, the Petition of Rights declares that the monarch may not (a) arrest legislators when attending Parliament (Article I, Section 6.1 of the U.S. Constitution provides a similar immunity for members of Congress); (b) force civilians to house and feed soldiers (the Third Amendment of the U.S. Constitution contains a similar proscription);

(c) levy taxes without approval from the House of Commons (Article I, Section 7.1 likewise mandates that revenue bills originate in the House of Representatives or a lower house); (d) incarcerate citizens without showing just cause (Article I, Section 9.2 of the U.S. Constitution limits the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus); (e) charge persons with a crime without a grand jury trial (this is echoed in the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution); or (f) take away private property without providing just compensation (this is similarly found in the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution).

The most far-reaching limitations on monarchical rule, however, came with the English Bill of Rights. The Glorious Revolution of 1688, a bloodless revolt by Parliament against the monarchy, culminated in 1689 when the newly crowned royalty, William III and Mary, agreed to recognize 13 specified civil rights. Those enumerated rights, which bear striking resemblance to ones found in the U.S. Constitution, include the right of British subjects (a) to petition the monarch for a redress of grievances (a similar provision is found in the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution); (b) to be protected against excessive bail and fines and cruel and unusual punishment (guarantees also found in the Eighth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution); (c) to a fair and speedy trial (provisions likewise found in the Sixth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution); (d) to free speech and debate in Parliament (a similar guarantee is afforded members of Congress in Article I, Section 6.1 of the U.S. Constitution); (e) to have Parliament approve the keeping of a standing army (Article I, Section 8.12 of the U.S. Constitution gives Congress financial control over the armed forces); and (f) the right of certain subjects (Protestants) to keep and bear arms (a similar provision is found in the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution).

Influence of Natural Rights Philosophers

A critical element of the British and American political experiences was the influence of the so-called natural rights philosophy that evolved during the late 17th and early 18th centuries, particularly the theories advanced by Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau. The common belief among these thinkers was that humans once lived in a state of nature where they had complete, unbridled freedom. However, this state of nature was fraught with peril and uncertainty, because there was nothing in the state of nature to protect their lives, property, or liberty. As Hobbes asserted in Leviathan, life in the state of

nature was “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short” (1909– 1914, para. 9). To survive, the people entered into a social contract or compact with the sovereign. In exchange for security, they agreed to relinquish certain freedoms but never their natural or unalienable rights. For Hobbes, the fundamental natural right was the right to life. For Locke, natural rights included freedoms of expression and, most important, ownership of property. And Rousseau believed the social contract required subjects to trade unrestrained liberties for civil liberties, or freedoms within the law. Each of these philosophers realized the necessity of balancing liberty with authority or security. The difference among theories, of course, was a question of degree.

The natural rights document that doubtless had the greatest impact on the American political experience was John Locke’s Two Treatises on Government (1689/1764). Written to justify the Glorious Revolution of 1688 and the overthrow of King James II of England, Locke’s disquisition sets forth many ideas that were read by American colonists and served as blueprints for the American Revolution. Among other things, Locke posits that people are created equal and possess the rights to liberty and property. Locke further maintains that humans are entitled to pursue their own potentials in life. And should the sovereign fail to protect these “unalienable rights,” Locke asserts, the people have the right to overthrow the sovereign. As will be seen, these phrases bear striking resemblance to those echoed by Thomas Jefferson in the American Declaration of Independence of 1776. The U.S. Constitution’s (1787) Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments also stipulate that no person shall be deprived of “life, liberty, or property, without due process.” Finally, the Ninth Amendment carries natural rights overtones, declaring, “The enumeration in this Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

Influence of the Liberal Arts

and Age of Enlightenment

Our nation’s founders were no doubt influenced by their education. Most of the delegates who signed the Declaration of Independence and drafted the Constitution were relatively well educated. Virtually all first learned to read in the home, most received some formal education, and many attended college at a relatively young age. Approximately 30 of the 55 delegates to the Constitutional Convention were college graduates. The centerpiece of the 18th century college education was the liberal arts curriculum, which was generally composed of what was termed the trivium (grammar, rhetoric, and logic) and quadrivium (arithmetic, geometry, music, and astronomy). Thus, the emphasis was on acquiring intellectual and cultural knowledge, as opposed to learning technical skills or a trade.

This too was the advent of the Age of Enlightenment, a period when intellectuals throughout Europe and the American colonies yearned to comprehend human nature

and sought to improve life through social and political reforms. Among the leaders of this intellectual movement was Sir Francis Bacon, an English scholar known for his theory of scientific discovery. Bacon posited that it was possible to observe nature, discover universal laws, and apply them to ameliorate society’s problems. Many of the Constitution’s framers were avid readers and were quite familiar with Bacon and other great thinkers of the period, such as David Hume, Edmund Burke, and Baron de Montesquieu. Even George Washington, who possessed but 5 years of formal schooling, collected books and was familiar with the classics. Perhaps Jefferson said it best: “I cannot live without books” (Cappon, 1987, p. 443).

Influence of Classical Republicanism

The American founders were also influenced by classical republicanism: ancient Greek and Roman political philosophy. The central tenet of classical republicanism is that governmental leaders should put the public interest above private desires and promote the common good through civic virtue. Civic virtue entails such ideals as individual accountability, responsibility, integrity, compassion, fairness, generosity, courage, self-control, and moderation. Records reveal that many of the leaders who forged the Declaration of Independence and drafted the Constitution were quite familiar with ancient Greek and Roman culture and history. Among the ancient Greek thinkers and orators they admired were Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Sophocles, Plutarch, Thucydides, Polybius, Demosthenes, and Homer. The framers appeared equally enamored of the writings of Cicero, Horace, Justinian, and Virgil from the Roman Republic (circa 500 to 27 BCE). This admiration is well demonstrated by the fact that both anti-Federalist and Federalist pamphlets (see the following discussion) were published under the pseudonyms of Roman heroes, such as Brutus, Centinel, Cato, and Publius. Personal correspondence among the American founders, particularly Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, Alexander Hamilton, and James Madison, also reveals frequent references to these early Greek and Roman thinkers. And on relinquishing the presidency, George Washington was often referred to as America’s Cincinnatus—a popular Roman consul who voluntarily gave up power to return to the plow.

Influence of Judeo-Christian Teachings

Finally, there is clear evidence our early American leaders were profoundly influenced by Judeo-Christian teachings. At least 9 of the original 13 colonies had established state churches prior to the Declaration of Independence. Many of the 18th-century leaders learned to read from the Bible and were versed in the scriptures. Colonial colleges often required students to translate Biblical passages into Latin and Greek as a condition of admission. Delegates to the Constitutional Convention frequently quoted the Ten Commandments, the Sermon on the Mount, and other

Founding of the American Political System • 687

passages from the Old and New Testaments. Early state constitutions contained references to the Deity. The Declaration of Independence speaks of Nature’s God and rights endowed by the Creator. The Liberty Bell’s inscription, “Proclaim Liberty throughout the Land,” was a passage from the book of Leviticus in the Old Testament. And Benjamin Franklin (1787) observed, “God governs in the affairs of men” (para. 2).

Movement Toward

American Independence

Salutary Neglect

Nearly 170 years transpired between the founding of Jamestown and American independence. During that span, Great Britain and the American colonies maintained a symbiotic relationship. As noted above, the colonies supplied the mother country with raw materials and provided a market for goods manufactured in England. The colonies benefited from a common language, uniform currency, and military protection from the French, Spanish, Native Americans, and pirates on the high seas. But the 3,000 miles separating the colonies from the mother country created communication problems. It became impossible for the Crown to maintain tight control over the daily affairs in the colonies. Over time, the colonists gained considerable freedom from British regulations and frequently found ways to evade what were relatively low taxes. The British, of course, realized what was happening but largely turned a blind eye as long as the system was functioning. This situation became known as salutary neglect.

However, this rather tranquil relationship between Great Britain and the American colonies began to turn sour in 1754 with the outbreak of the French and Indian War (also called the Seven Years’ War). In that year, intense fighting broke out between two coalitions over control of the North American continent. One faction was composed of the French and their Native American allies, and the other faction consisted of the British, American colonists, and their Native American supporters. The British- American-Native American coalition ultimately prevailed in 1763, with Great Britain wresting control of Canada, Louisiana, and the Mississippi River Valley.

This war proved particularly costly for Great Britain for two reasons. First, in 1754, the British convened a meeting of colonial representatives in Albany, New York, to organize for war. But the assemblage went far beyond British expectations. At this meeting, Benjamin Franklin of Pennsylvania introduced the Albany Plan of Union, calling for a colonial confederation to levy taxes, establish a militia, and address common concerns. The British rejected the plan, fearing it would weaken their control over the colonies, but the seeds were planted for unification. Second, the war significantly drained the British treasury. The cost of maintaining British troops in North America

688 • AMERICAN POLITICS

while simultaneously fighting the French on the European continent was staggering. To pay for the war, the Parliament began to impose a series of taxes and trade regulations on the American colonists.

The American colonists greatly resented these new taxes and regulations. Among the most despised British taxes was the stamp tax of 1765, a tax on all printed materials, including playing cards, legal documents, diplomas, calendars, and newspapers. The colonists, believing this was taxation without representation, called for a meeting in New York City in October 1765 to voice their opposition. Nine colonies sent representatives to the Stamp Act Congress. The delegates petitioned the Crown and Parliament to rescind the new taxes and called for a boycott of British goods. To enforce this boycott, colonists formed groups called Sons and Daughters of Liberty. Among the most notable protests was the Boston Tea Party on December 16, 1773, when some 200 patriots, disguised as Indians, stormed three ships to throw tea into the harbor in protest of the British tea tax. The British reacted by imposing additional taxes in 1774, known as the Coercive or Intolerable Acts, which in turn galvanized the colonists’ resolve.

First Continental Congress

To exert greater pressure on the Parliament, the 56 delegates from all states but Georgia assembled at Carpenter’s Hall in Philadelphia on September 5, 1774. Notable delegates included Patrick Henry and George Washington of Virginia, John Adams and Samuel Adams of Massachusetts, John Dickenson of Pennsylvania, John Rutledge of South Carolina, and Roger Sherman of Connecticut. Known as the First Continental Congress, the delegates denounced the Intolerable Acts, petitioned King George III to make reforms, and agreed to meet the following year should their demands be ignored. The British again refused to accede to the colonists’ demands. Then, on April 19, 1775, fighting broke out at Lexington and Concord in Massachusetts between the British regulars the colonial militia. These so-called shots heard round the world signaled the start of the Revolutionary War.

Second Continental Congress

The delegates reassembled at the State House (now called Independence Hall) in Philadelphia on May 10, 1775, becoming the Second Continental Congress. This time, all 13 colonies sent representatives. Joining this congress were John Hancock and Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts; Oliver Ellsworth of Connecticut; John Jay, Robert Livingston, and Alexander Hamilton of New York; James Madison, George Wythe, Edmund Randolph, and Richard Henry Lee of Virginia; Benjamin Franklin and James Wilson of Pennsylvania; and Charles Pinckney of South Carolina. Initially, the delegates were badly split on the

issue of breaking ties with Great Britain. Roughly one third of the delegates opposed independence, one third favored independence, and one third were uncertain how to proceed. John Hancock of Massachusetts was chosen the president of the Continental Congress, as the representative voted to raise money, issue currency, and form a continental army under the leadership of George Washington.

As events unfurled, public support for independence accelerated. Among the most persuasive arguments for independence were those advanced in Thomas Paine’s Common Sense. This widely read pamphlet, appearing in January 1776, underscored what Paine considered the people’s moral obligation to cast off the yoke of British oppression. Within months, calls for independence resonated throughout the colonies. Then, on June 7, 1776, Richard Henry Lee introduced this bold motion to the Second Continental Congress:

Resolved, That these United Colonies are, and of right ought to be free and independent States, that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political con nection between them and the State of Great Britain is, and ought to be, totally dissolved. (para. 1)

The congress approved the resolution, and a committee, composed of Robert Livingston, Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, Roger Sherman, and Thomas Jefferson, was appointed to draft the formal declaration. The bulk of this document, the Declaration of Independence, was written by the erudite Jefferson.

The Declaration of Independence

The Declaration of Independence, often called the birth certificate of our nation, can be viewed as three interrelated sections. In the first section, Jefferson explained the reason for the declaration and the philosophical principles on which it is constructed. He began by stating the underlying principles of democracy—representative government, limited government, rule by law, and individual democracy. Borrowing extensively from the natural rights philosophers and the Judeo-Christian heritage, Jefferson wrote,

We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. (Declaration of Independence, para. 3)

Note how Jefferson substituted the words pursuit of hap piness for the Lockean concept of property. Some scholars believe the phrase pursuit of happiness was just a form of shorthand for property, while others maintain the substitution was effectuated to prevent Americans from falsely anticipating the distribution or redistribution of property by

the new government. Again, note the Constitution’s Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments’ reinsertion of property when they guarantee that no person shall be denied the right to “life, liberty or property, without due process.”

The second section of the Declaration provides a detailed list of grievances against King George III. Among other things, the document charges that he has quartered British soldiers in civilian homes, levied taxes without the consent of the people, cut off trade, denied the right to trial by jury, abolished elected legislatures, and imposed absolute rule.

The final section clarifies the colonists’ fruitless efforts to resolve differences peacefully, chastises the Crown’s recalcitrance, and declares that the colonists must be free of British rule. The document concludes with these searing words:

That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connec tion between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, con tract allegiances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. (Declaration of Independence, para. 33)

Technically, the Second Continental Congress formally declared independence on July 2, but it would be another 2 days before the redacted Declaration of Independence received final approval on July 4, 1776. The document was then delivered to John Dunlap, a renowned Philadelphia artisan, for final printing. Contrary to popular paintings, the delegates did not sign the Declaration of Independence at one sitting. Rather, the 56 signatures were affixed to the engrossed copy over a period of weeks, beginning with John Hancock’s bold strokes on August 2, 1776. Although the Declaration of Independence makes it clear that the colonists were cutting ties with England, uncertainty remained about the nature of the new government. Were the signers creating 13 sovereign nations or 1 sovereign nation consisting of 13 states? The document appeared to send mixed signals by stating that “these United Colonies are . . . Free and Independent States” (Declaration of Independence, para. 33).

Colonies Transform Into States

Clearly, the colonies thought they were independent states. The process of transforming colonies into independent states started even before the Declaration of Independence was inked. New Hampshire became the first colony to jettison its royal charter and craft a state constitution in January of 1776, and over the course of several years, the remaining colonies followed suit. Each new state considered itself an independent, sovereign nation, free to engage in foreign commerce, negotiate treaties, establish

Founding of the American Political System • 689

currency, and control its own borders. Although the 13 new state constitutions varied in wording and length, they contained a number of commonalities. All of them embraced separation of powers, establishing a legislative, an executive, and a judicial branch of government. With the exceptions of Pennsylvania and Georgia, all adopted bicameral or two-house legislatures, with the lower house being popularly elected by qualified voters. For the most part, the executive branch was considered weak, reflecting the recent colonial distrust of the royal governors. Seven states also included a bill of rights. And each newly created state continued to send delegates to the Second Continental Congress and support the establishment of the Articles of Confederation.

Articles of Confederation

As the Revolutionary War accelerated, representatives at the Second Continental Congress soon came to the realization that some central governmental apparatus was necessary to coordinate the states, marshal resources, and prosecute the war. In 1776, a committee set forth a plan for the Articles of Confederation. The proposal was debated for more than a year and a half before the Continental Congress approved it and it was sent to the states for ratification. The Articles of Confederation (1777) went into effect in 1781, after Maryland became the requisite 13th state to ratify the plan. The Articles thus became America’s first written national constitution.

The Articles of Confederation formed largely an association of independent states. Its stated purpose was to establish a “firm league of friendship” to promote “their common defense, the security of their liberties, and their mutual and general welfare” (Article III). Yet the document recognized each state’s right to retain its “sovereignty, freedom, and independence” (Article II). The centerpiece of the Articles was a unicameral legislature. All representatives were appointed by their respective state legislatures, and most received only nominal compensation at best. The number of representatives allotted for each state delegation ranged from two to seven, but each state was entitled to cast a single vote in the Confederation Congress. All legislative actions required approval of two thirds, or 9 of the 13 states. There was no executive authority, and the judiciary had extremely limited jurisdiction. Thus, the central government was inherently week.

From the very outset, the Articles of Confederation were plagued by a series of vexing problems. The Confederation Congress had no authority to impose tariffs or collect taxes. Without revenue, the confederation could not adequately pay an army or a navy. And without military forces, the confederation could not prevent piracy on the high seas, protect settlements on the frontier, or pay off a growing war debt. The Confederation Congress was also powerless to regulate commerce or settle boundary disputes between sister states. States frequently taxed imported goods,

690 • AMERICAN POLITICS

coined their own money, imposed trade barriers, and negotiated treaties with foreign governments and Native American tribes. Because states often refused to recognize contracts, civil judgments, and criminal proceedings from neighboring states, debtors could stave off bill collectors and criminals could avoid prosecution by simply moving across state lines. Finally, it was virtually impossible to address these glaring weaknesses because unanimity was required to amend the Articles.

The Articles of Confederation, however, were not a total failure. Despite their glaring weakness, they managed to hold the states together long enough to conclude the war and forge the Treaty of Paris with Great Britain in 1783. The Articles also enacted the Northwest Ordinance of 1787 that provided the ground rules for developing Western lands, annexing territories, and admitting new states under the U.S. Constitution (Article IV, Section 3.1 and 3.2). The Articles diplomatic corps also provided international experience for many future American leaders, including Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, and Benjamin Franklin. And some of the legislative committees and administrative rules established under the Articles laid the foundation for our present-day Departments of State, Treasury, and Defense.

The Constitution of the United States

Road to the Constitution

By 1786, the Confederation was on the verge of economic collapse. The currency issued by the Continental Congress became seriously devalued, and states accelerated the printing of worthless paper money to enable citizens to pay their debts and taxes. Inflation was running rampant, and foreclosures reached epidemic proportions. Citizens gathered in the streets and at government buildings to protest and advocate for government reform. Emblematic of the growing economic unrest was Shay’s Rebellion in Massachusetts. In 1786, Daniel Shay, a distraught farmer and Revolutionary War veteran, organized protests of debtors’ prisons and courthouses. The uprising was ultimately quelled, but it sent a clear signal among state leaders that drastic action was needed to restore public confidence and restore order.

A group of prominent Virginians, led by George Washington and James Madison, convinced the Virginia legislature to convene a meeting of sister states in Annapolis, Maryland, to discuss maritime commerce, trade, and the state of the union. In September 1786, five states—Virginia, New York, Delaware, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania—sent representatives to this Annapolis Convention. Among the most influential representatives that met at Mann’s Tavern were James Madison (Virginia), Alexander Hamilton (New York), John Dickenson (Delaware), and Edmond Randolph (Virginia). After discussing their common economic woes, the small assemblage

issued a challenge to all states to consider revising the Articles of Confederation. Spurred on by the Annapolis Convention, in February 1787, the Continental Congress officially called on all 13 states to send delegates to Philadelphia the following May:

for the sole and express purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation and reporting to Congress and the several legis latures such alterations and provisions therein as shall . . . render the federal constitution [the Articles of Confederation] ade quate to the exigencies of Government and the preservation of the Union. (Resolution of Congress, 1787, para. 2)

The Constitutional Convention

The Framers

Eleven states quickly appointed delegates to assemble at the State House (now called Independence Hall) in Philadelphia on May 14, 1787. New Hampshire’s delegates appeared much later in the proceedings, and Rhode Island opted not to participate. Altogether, 73 delegates were appointed, only 55 attended any of the sessions, and just 39 signed the completed document. All were white males, and all were Protestant, save one (Daniel Carroll, a Catholic from Maryland). The delegates’ average age was roughly 43 years. Jonathan Dayton of New Jersey was the youngest delegate, at 26, and the venerable Benjamin Franklin was the oldest, at 81. Occupationally, 32 of the 55 delegates were lawyers, 8 were merchants, 3 were medical doctors, 2 were college presidents, about 2 dozen owned slaves, 1 was an inventor (Benjamin Franklin), and nearly all had considerable political seasoning. Eight had signed the Declaration of Independence, 44 were state representatives in the Continental Congress, 7 had been governors, many had been officers in the Continental army, and the vast majority served in their respective colonial or state legislatures.

Unquestionably, the most prominent national figures to participate in the Constitutional Convention were George Washington of Virginia and Benjamin Franklin of Pennsylvania; they provided a sense of legitimacy and gravitas to the convention. Other highly respected senior solons included Roger Sherman of Connecticut, John Dickinson of Delaware, George Mason of Virginia, John Rutledge of South Carolina, and William Livingston of New Jersey. Among those who held strong state and parochial interests were William Patterson of New Jersey, Charles Pinckney of South Carolina, Luther Martin of Maryland, and Robert Yates and John Lansing of New York. Those advocating strong national proclivities included James Wilson of Pennsylvania, Alexander Hamilton of New York, and James Madison of Virginia. Noticeably absent were patriots Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, John Hancock, Samuel Adams, and Patrick Henry. Jefferson and John Adams were serving diplomatic missions in Europe, Hancock and Sam Adams were

not picked as their respective states’ delegates, and Patrick Henry held apprehensions about the convention’s motives, saying he “smelt a rat.”

The Convention Organization

The Convention did not reach a quorum (7 of 12 states) to conduct a formal meeting until May 25, 1787. The first order of business was to select its leaders and establish rules of procedure. General George Washington was unanimously elected the presiding officer, and Major William Jackson of South Carolina was selected recording secretary. Washington sat at the front of the assemblage and appeared to say little during the proceedings, but his towering presence and air of neutrality doubtlessly helped maintain decorum. Jackson’s official journals, however, were slipshod and incomplete. Fortunately for posterity, others took notes, including Robert Yates, James McHenry, John Lansing, and, most important, James Madison. Madison sat near the front of the convention and maintained the most detailed records of the convention’s motions and debates. It is largely for this reason, plus his sage proposals, that James Madison has been appropriately dubbed the Father of the Constitution. (Madison’s notes were subsequently given to Washington, who deposited them with the Department of State in 1796. Following Madison’s death in 1836, Congress promulgated the convention notes.)

The convention rules were quite simple and flexible. The framers agreed to keep the proceedings secret to encourage candidness and full discussion of the issues. Doors remained locked and guarded. And to maintain secrecy, the delegates often had to conduct business with the windows down during the long, hot summer months. Much of the proceedings took place in the committee of the whole, and specific proposals were assigned to select committees to help iron out differences. Each state had but one vote, a quorum was required, and motions passed with a simple majority vote.

The Challenges

The challenges facing the convention delegates were both daunting and complex. James Madison would later summarize the central dilemma this way: “In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the chief difficulty lies in this: You must first enable the government to control the governed, and in the next place oblige it to control itself” (“The Federalist No. 51,” 1788, para. 4). Obviously, the framers realized the Articles of Confederation had failed to adequately control the government and needed to be jettisoned. But they were equally fearful of establishing a central government so powerful that it would run roughshod over the states and, more important, the people’s rights. Was it possible to create a written constitution that could satisfy both

Founding of the American Political System • 691

objectives? This is something that no national polity had theretofore ever created. And how would the framers address the critical issues regarding representation, slavery, and the economy?

Forging the New Constitution

The Issue of Representation

Once the Convention had agreed on its rules, Edmund Randolph of Virginia quickly introduced a groundbreaking plan that framed the debate over the new constitution. This plan, known as the Virginia Plan, was really the brainchild of James Madison. It contained 15 resolutions that called for the abandonment of the Articles of Confederation and the creation of a strong national government. Among other things, the plan called for three branches of government— legislative, executive, and judicial. The legislative branch would be composed of two houses, an upper and a lower house, whose representation would be based on a state’s population. Virginia, for example, would have 16 representatives, while Delaware would be entitled to just two. The popularly elected lower house would then select members of the upper house. The legislative branch would also choose members of the executive and judicial branches, but each branch would possess the ability to check the other branch. Additionally, the national government would possess authority to override contradictory state laws. The convention debated this plan for nearly a fortnight. The more populous states, such as Massachusetts, New York, and Virginia, naturally favored this large-state plan, while the less populous states, such as Delaware, Georgia, and New Jersey, understandably vehemently opposed the Virginia Plan.

On June 15, William Patterson of New Jersey offered a counterproposal, known as the small-state or New Jersey Plan. Under this plan, the Articles of Confederation essentially would be maintained but significantly altered. The plan called for a one-house congress with representatives appointed by their respective state legislatures. And each state would have but one vote, irrespective of the state’s population. However, the plan called for plural executives chosen by the national congress and a supreme court appointed by the executive branch. The convention debated this plan for 4 days, but its provisions, and alternatives offered by Alexander Hamilton of New York and Charles Pinckney of South Carolina, were categorically rejected by the larger states. The delegates were thus at loggerheads over the issue of representation.

By late June, the convention appeared to be on the verge of collapsing over the issue of representation and structure of the national government. Indeed, Luther Martin (1911), of Maryland, recorded on June 28 that the convention was “scarcely held together by the strength of a hair” (p. 196). The stalemate was finally broken when

692 • AMERICAN POLITICS

the Connecticut delegation, led by Roger Sherman, offered this solution: “In one branch the people ought to be represented; in the other, the states” (Boutell, 1896, p. 145). According, to this Connecticut Compromise (or Great Compromise) the new congress would be composed of two houses—a lower and an upper house. Representatives in the lower house, or House of Representatives, would be apportioned according to population and would be elected by qualified voters in their respective states. This chamber would also be charged with initiating revenue bills. Legislators in the upper house, or Senate, would be chosen by their respective state legislatures, and every state would be entitled to the same number of senators.

The Issue of Slavery

The .framers also faced the vexing issues relating to slavery The total population among the 13 original states (excluding Native Americans) was approximately 3 million in 1787, and of that, roughly 300,000, or about 10% of the total population, were slaves. The vast majority of slaves lived in the six Southern states, where slave labor was critical to supporting large plantations. Delegates from the Southern states were therefore concerned over four critical issues. First, they opposed any efforts to abolish or tax the importation of slaves under the new constitution. Second, Southern delegates sought assurances that free states would return runaway slaves to their owners. Third, Southern delegates wanted slaves to count for representation in the national legislature. But fourth, they did not want slaves counted for the purpose of apportioning taxes among the states. Northern delegates naturally opposed such measures; they believed Southern states would accelerate the importation of slaves to unfairly increase their representation in the lower house.

This sectional rift over slavery too was resolved through a series of compromises. Regarding the issue of importation, the delegates agreed, in the so-called slave trade compromise, that the importation of slaves “shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight” and that an importation tax shall not exceed “ten dollars for each Person” (U.S. Constitution, 1787, Article I, Section 9.1). (Congress outlawed the importation of new slaves in 1808, and slavery, of course, was ended with the Civil War and the passage of the Thirteenth Amendment in 1866.) The framers also agreed to the so-called fugitive slave compromise in Article IV, Section 2.3, authorizing Congress to establish rules for recapturing escaped slaves. (This was rendered null and void with the passage of the Thirteenth Amendment.) Finally, concerning the issue of representation and taxation, the delegates agreed in Article I, Section 2.3, to a so-called three-fifth’s compromise, whereby slaves were to be counted as three fifths of free persons. (This too was superseded by Section 2 of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868.)

Economic Issues

Delegates were also badly divided over economic issues. The Northern states’ delegates were particularly concerned about commerce. As noted earlier, Northern manufacturers and shipping interests were hard hit under the Articles of Confederation. States frequently imposed trade barriers, coined their own money, and were unable to enforce contracts made in sister states. The national government was also powerless to regulate commerce, protect domestic goods from foreign competition, or prevent the piracy of manufactured goods shipped on the high seas. Northern delegates thus preferred a strong national government with the power to negotiate treaties, levy taxes, and regulate commerce. Southern states’ delegates, however, feared that a strong national government might run roughshod over their economic interests. More specifically, they feared a strong national government would impose tariffs that might have deleterious effects on their agricultural products (namely, tobacco and cotton) and engage in treaties that would ultimately outlaw slave transactions.

Concessions were made on both sides of the economic divide. Among other things, the Northern states’ delegates were able to secure the national governmental power to

(a) lay and collect taxes (Article I, Section 8.1), (b) negotiate treaties (Article II, Section 2.2), (c) regulate foreign and interstate commerce (Article I, Section 8.3), (d) provide for an army and navy (Article I, Sections 8.12 and 8.13), and (e) punish piracy on the high seas (Article I, Section 8.10). The Southern states’ delegates won assurances that

(a) Congress could not tax articles exported from states (Article I, Section 9.5), (b) Congress could not prefer one port over another (Article I, Section 9.6), (c) treaties required a two-thirds vote of the Senate (Article II, Section 2.2), and

(d) the slave trade would not be prohibited for two decades (Article I, Section 9.1).

Basic Features of the Constitution

Separation of Powers

Among the most striking features of the U.S. Constitution is the concept of separation of powers. Separation of powers can be traced to French philosopher Baron de Montesquieu (1748/1989) and his classic work, The Spirit of the Laws. Drawing on the ancient Roman republic, Montesquieu believed there were three fundamental forms of government—monarchy (rule by one), aristocracy (rule by few), and democracy (rule by many)— and that the best way to achieve the common good was to have a mixed constitution that combined all three forms. Montesquieu further believed the British government of his day more or less encapsulated this notion with the tripartite division of the king (monarchy), the House of Lords (aristocracy), and the House of Commons (democracy).

The framers, particularly Madison, were familiar with Montesquieu’s (1748/1989) concept of dividing powers

and the necessity of preventing any one interest from becoming too powerful. However, the framers modified Montesquieu’s concept by creating three separate branches of government in the U.S. Constitution. Article I, Section 1 states, “All Legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress which shall consist of a Senate and a House of Representatives.” Article II, Section 1 provides, “The Executive Powers shall be vested in a President of the United States. . . .” And Article III, Section 1 begins, “The Judicial Power shall be vested in one Supreme Court and such inferior courts as Congress shall from time to time ordain and establish.”

Under this plan, each of the three branches is responsible to a different constituency. Members of the Senate were to be selected by their respective state legislatures (the Seventeenth Amendment in 1913 calls for the popular election of U.S. senators), while members of the House of Representatives were to be popularly elected by qualified voters in their respective states. The president of the United States is to be chosen by electors (collectively referred to as the electoral college). And the Supreme Court justices are appointed by the president with “advice and consent” (a simple majority vote) of the Senate. Additionally, the officials of each branch serve for different terms, making it difficult for any one interest to wrest control of government in a single election. Thus, U.S. senators serve 6-year staggered terms so that only one third are up for reelection every 2 years, U.S. House members serve 2-year terms with all members facing reelection every 2 years, the president serves 4-year terms (the 22nd Amendment of 1951 restricts the president to two 4-year terms or a total of 10 years), and justices of the Supreme Court serve as long as they maintain “good behavior.”

Checks and Balances

In addition to separating the powers, each branch is given constitutional authority to challenge the other two branches. This makes it difficult for any particular interest to gain too much control of the national government. This arrangement, known as checks and balances, also comports with Madison’s belief that “ambition must be made to counter ambition” (“The Federalist No. 51,” 1788, para. 4). Consider some of the powers and restrictions the framers built into our Constitution. A bill that passes the House of Representatives can be tabled in the Senate, and vice versa (Article I, Section 7.2). Any bill that passes both houses of Congress can be vetoed by the president (Article I, Section 7.2), but vetoes (excluding pocket veto) can be overridden by a two-thirds vote of both houses of Congress (Article I, Section 7.3). The Supreme Court can declare acts of the Congress unconstitutional (see judicial review in the following discussion), but Congress can alter the appellate jurisdiction of the federal courts (Article III, Section 1) and propose constitutional amendments (Article V) to supersede the high court (as it did with the Eleventh,

Founding of the American Political System • 693

Fourteenth, and Sixteenth Amendments). And the House can impeach and the Senate can remove the president or federal judges for “Treason, Bribery, or other high crimes and Misdemeanors” (Article I, Section 3.6; Article II, Section 4).

Federalism

In addition to the issues of representation and slavery, the question of how to divide powers between the national government and the states was of paramount concern to the framers. As noted earlier, the delegates had personally experienced the weaknesses of a confederation and recognized the necessity of establishing a stronger national government. Yet delegates were leery of a unitary government and were unwilling to surrender their respective states’ control over local affairs. The compromise was to establish a totally new and unique form of government, a federal form of government, in which a written constitution enumerates the powers belonging to the national government and places restrictions on both the national and state governments.

More specifically, the original (sans amendments) U.S. Constitution (a) delegates powers to the national government—Congress, for example, has the power to lay and collect taxes and tariffs (Article I, Section 8.1), declare war (Article I, Section 8.11), promote science and arts (Article I, Section 8.8), suppress insurrections and repel invasions (Article I, Section 8.15), create new states (Article IV, Section 3), and guarantee each state a republican form of government (Article IV, Section 4); (b) restricts powers of the national government—Congress may not suspend the writ of habeas corpus in peacetime (Article I, Section 9.2), pass ex post facto laws or bills of attainder (Article I, Section 9.3), tax goods exported from states (Article I, Section 9.5), or grant titles of nobility (Article I, Section 9.8); and (c) restricts the powers of the state governments—state governments, for instance, may not enter into treaties with foreign governments, grant letters of marque and reprisal (authority of private bounty hunters to capture pirates), coin money, pass bills of attainder or expost facto laws, interfere with private contracts, or grant titles of nobility (Article I, Section 10.1).

Additional governmental delineations were created after the U.S. Constitution was ratified. Among the powers recognized through subsequent constitutional amendments or Supreme Court rulings were (a) powers retained by the people—see the Ninth Amendment and rulings on the right of marital privacy (Griswold v. Connecticut, 1965) and abortion rights (Roe v. Wade, 1973); (b) powers reserved to the state or people—powers that are neither given to the national government nor prohibited the states (see the Tenth Amendment) and include the state governments’ right to provide public education or regulate political parties (because neither terms are found in the U.S. Constitution); and (c) powers implied from the Constitution—these powers

694 • AMERICAN POLITICS

are not specifically stated in the Constitution but are naturally inferred from those that are. Implied powers can be traced to the landmark decision McCulloch v. Maryland (1819), when Chief Justice John Marshall upheld the federal government’s authority to establish a national banking system, even though the word bank nowhere appears in the constitution. Marshall reasoned, in part, that since Congress possessed the delegated powers to coin money, borrow money, tax, spend, punish counterfeiting, and regulate bankruptcies (see Article I, Section 8) and since Congress is also empowered to do what is “necessary and proper” (see Article I, Section 8.18, the socalled elastic clause) to carry out those delegated powers, Congress therefore had the right to establish a banking system. The Constitution also placed limits on government, including (a) restrictions on the national government—among the rights protected were freedom of expression (First Amendment), the right to bear arms (Second Amendment), freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures (Fourth Amendment), freedom from self-incrimination (Fifth Amendment), the right to counsel (Sixth Amendment), and freedom from cruel or unusual punishments (Eight Amendment); and (b) restrictions on the state governments— the U.S. Constitution now proscribes state governments from denying persons the right to due process, equal protection, privileges, or immunities (see the Fourteenth Amendment). These are just a few of the proscriptions set forth in the Constitution and Bill of Rights and later amendments.

Supremacy of National Laws

The framers understood that there would be periodic conflicts between the national laws and state laws, especially over concurrent or shared powers (for example, both national and state governments may levy taxes, charter corporations, and enact criminal laws). To resolve jurisdictional conflicts between the two levels of government, the founders included this so-called supremacy clause:

This Constitution, and the law of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding. (U.S. Constitution, 1787, Article VI, Section 2)

Thus, if a conflict occurs between the U.S. Supreme Court ruling and a state constitution, the former would hold sway (see Brown v. Board of Education, 1954). Similarly, should a dispute arise over a legitimate treaty and a state constitution, the treaty would take precedence (see Missouri v. Holland, 1920). And if a dispute arises between a law passed by Congress and a state legislature, the national statute generally would be deemed superior (for example, see Pennsylvania v. Nelson, 1956). The supremacy clause is the legal mortar that helps hold the federal system together.

Ratifying the Constitution

The framers drafted, debated, and concluded their work in 116 days. On September 17, 1787, 39 brave delegates, starting with George Washington, affixed their signatures to the final document. The Constitution of the United States is a relatively short document providing the framework on which the American political system is built. The final version was penned by Jacob Shallus, a clerk for the Pennsylvania state legislature, for a fee of $30, on four pages of parchment, approximately 24 inches wide and 29 inches long. The document contains just 4,400 words (perhaps fewer words than today’s daily newspapers’ sports sections). It begins with the Preamble, a one-paragraph introduction, stating its lofty purpose:

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 [sic], 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. (U.S. Constitution, 1787, para. 1)

The body of the Constitution is composed of the following Articles or legal subdivisions: Article I (legislative branch); Article II (executive branch); Article III (judicial branch); Article IV (interstate relations); Article V (amendment process); Article VI (debt assumption, supremacy clause, and oath restrictions); and Article VII (provisions for ratification).

Drafting the new document was a monumental accomplishment, but it was just the first step in the tortuous process. Next, the framers reported back to the Continental Congress, which reluctantly agreed to submit the proposed Constitution to the states for ratification on September 28, 1787. The Congress agreed to follow the procedures set forth in Article VII by requiring the approval of 9 of 13 states in ratifying conventions. The framers wisely opted to use state ratifying conventions rather than state legislatures, because many state legislators opposed efforts to strengthen the national government, especially in New York, Virginia, and Rhode Island (which, of course, sent no delegates to the Philadelphia convention).

Delaware became the first state to ratify the new Constitution on December 7, 1787, and over the course of 7 months, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Georgia, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Maryland, and South Carolina followed suit. On June 21, 1788, New Hampshire became the ninth state to complete the requisite ratification. Still, there was considerable work to be done. Virginia and New York, the most populous and influential states, had yet to ratify the Constitution, and without their critical support, many feared the new government might not survive. For the most part, civic leaders split into two diametrically opposed camps—the anti-Federalists and the Federalists.

Anti-Federalists and Federalists Debate

Anti Federalists

Even before the Constitution’s ink was dry, opposition to its provisions began to organize. Among the delegates who refused to sign the Constitution were Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts and George Mason of Virginia. Other notable state leaders who joined the anti-Federalist camp included Patrick Henry, William Grayson, James Monroe, and Richard Henry Lee of Virginia; Samuel Adams and John Hancock of Massachusetts; Luther Martin of Maryland; Samuel Bryan of Pennsylvania; and George Clinton and Robert Yates of New York. During the ratification period, some anti-Federalists delivered speeches and published newspaper articles criticizing the new government. Those articles, now collectively known as the “Anti-Federalist Papers,” appeared under such nom de plumes as Centinel (Samuel Bryan), Cato (George Clinton), Federal Farmer (most likely Richard Henry Lee), and Brutus (Robert Yates).

The anti-Federalists registered many complaints about the Constitution. Many objected to the secrecy enshrouding the Philadelphia convention. However, the most salient anti-Federalist objections concerned expanded powers of the national government relative to the states and citizens. They feared that the so-called necessary and proper clause (Article I, Section 8.18) would give Congress a virtual blank check to expand legislative authority over the states. They averred the president would have too many powers, especially military command of a permanent national army during peacetime. The prospect that the Supreme Court could nullify state constitutions and statutes using the socalled supremacy clause (Article VI, Section 2) was especially troubling. Most important, they complained the new constitution lacked a bill of rights to ensure individual liberties against the national government’s action. The unamended Constitution, for example, contained no guarantees of free speech, press, or assembly.

The Federalists

Noteworthy supporters of the new Constitution included George Washington, William Randolph, John Marshall, and James Madison of Virginia; Gouverneur Morris of Pennsylvania; and Alexander Hamilton and John Jay of New York. Ironically, at the Philadelphia Convention, Alexander Hamilton had serious misgivings about the Constitution but signed begrudgingly, while William Randolph refused to sign altogether. The two, however, came to realize the futility of the Articles of Confederation and the necessity of embracing a stronger national government.

The most effective advocates of the proposed Constitution were Madison, Hamilton, and Jay. Between October 2, 1787, and May 28, 1788, the three published

Founding of the American Political System • 695

85 essays in New York newspapers under the pen name Publius. Known collectively as “The Federalist Papers,” the essays were widely read and effectively countered the arguments advanced by the anti-Federalists. For example, the Federalists maintained that the Articles of Confederation were beyond repair, that the separation of powers with built-in checks and balances would prevent any one branch from dominating the national government, that the popularly elected chamber (House of Representatives) would control the purse strings of military operations, that the Supreme Court would be the weakest branch of government, and that individual freedoms were protected under Article I, Sections 9 and 10. But to allay the anti-Federalist’s fears, the Federalists promised to add a bill of rights once the Constitution had been ratified, and a national government was in place.

The Federalists’ pledge to add a bill of rights doubtlessly helped sway members of the Virginia and New York ratifying conventions. Virginia ratified the Constitution on June 25, 1788, and New York ratified by a scant three votes on July 26, 1788. Ratification by these two critical states ensured that the new government would take root. The final business of the Continental Congress was to determine a temporary nation’s capital, call for congressional elections, and set the date for the new government to commence.

The Constitution: An Elite Document or a Bundle of Compromises?

Over the years, many scholars have devoted considerable attention to ascertaining the motives of the people who wrote and supported the Constitution of the United States. The central question is whether the founders were motivated by self-interests or lofty principles. There are loosely two schools of thought—those who contend the Constitution reflects the preferences of an economic elite class, and those who believe the Constitution is not only an amalgam of compromised interests but also an embodiment of democratic theory.

Arguably the most influential scholar on this topic is Charles A. Beard (1913), a historian from the University of Wisconsin and a former president of the American Political Science Association. In his seminal work, An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution, Beard impugned the notion that the 55 delegates who attended the Constitutional Convention did so solely for altruistic reasons. Beard’s rather cursory examination of treasury, census, and tax records led him to conclude that the framers were economically motivated to form the new government. He implies, then, that the U.S. Constitution is essentially an economic document created by political elites to protect their investments that were deleteriously impacted by the ineffectual Articles of Confederation. His research revealed that of the 55 convention delegates,

696 • AMERICAN POLITICS

11 could be classified as manufacturers, merchants, or shippers; 40 were holders of public security interest (including George Washington); 14 were Western land speculators (including George Washington); 24 were lenders or creditors (including George Washington); 15 owned plantations with significant slaveholdings (including George Washington); but not a single delegate represented the socalled mechanics class (laborers). Beard further asserts that George Washington was likely the richest man in the 13 states and that the framers were primarily well-heeled lawyers from coastal regions where manufacturing and shipping were quite prevalent. Finally, Beard concludes that at least five sixths of the framers were the direct beneficiaries of the Constitution and that less than one sixth of the white male population had any voice in the ratification process.

Again, consider some of the provisions relating to economic interests in the U.S. Constitution. As noted earlier, Congress has the power to coin money, regulate interstate commerce, regulate bankruptcies, and establish weights and measures (Article I, Section 8). Such authority was lacking under the Articles. The U.S. Constitution grants the national government authority to establish an army (which can protect land investments on the frontier) and a navy (which can prevent piracy of shipped goods on the high seas). States are constitutionally forbidden (Article I, Section 10.1) to interfere with contracts (thus preventing debtor-dominated legislatures canceling money owed the creditors). The so-called full faith and credit provision (Article IV, Section 1) makes it difficult for people to avoid debts by moving to another state. People fleeing to another state to avoid criminal prosecutions may be extradited (Article IV, Section 2.2), and Congress regulates the development of Western lands (Article IV, Section 3.2). These and other economic-related clauses thus appear to lend credence to Beard’s thesis.

However, there is a significant body of research that questions Beard’s methodology and conclusion that the framers represented but a single, monolithic interest—the well-to-do. In his seminal work, The Framing of the Constitution of the United States, Max Farrand (1913) observed that the Constitution is a “bundle of compromises” of varied societal and economic interests. Similarly, noted historian Robert E. Brown (1956) asserted in Charles A. Beard and the Constitution that Beard seriously underplays the variety of economic interests at the Philadelphia Convention. Brown’s empirical research reveals that poor people and middle-class Americans were also adversely affected under the Articles of Confederation, that the framers and state leaders who ratified the Constitution had democratic leanings, and that it is wrong to conclude the Constitution is an economic document created to protect the interests of wealthy creditors.

Arguably the most damaging criticism of Beard’s thesis came from historian Forrest McDonald (1976), in his classic work, We the People: The Economic Origins of the Constitution.

McDonald began by reinvestigating the financial archives of the 55 delegates to the Philadelphia Convention plus the personal backgrounds of over 1,700 delegates to the state ratifying conventions. His perusal reveals that Beard’s research was slipshod and that there were several dozen competing economic interests surrounding the adoption of the Constitution. Although McDonald concedes that most of the framers were relatively well-to-do, he also amply demonstrates there were many wealthy civic leaders, including those who held public securities, who seriously opposed the Constitution. Conversely, McDonald identified numerous people of modest means with scant property ownership who supported the Constitution. McDonald ultimately concludes that the process surrounding the adoption and ratification of the Constitution was fluid and dynamic and that the framers, as a whole, were principled, pragmatic men who understood the necessity of chartering a new form of government.

The New Government and The Bill of Rights

The Continental Congress chose Federal Hall on New York City’s Wall Street to serve as the nation’s first capitol and set the first Wednesday in February 1789 to elect members of the first Congress. Although the Constitution called for the Congress to convene on March 3, the new government lacked a quorum (simple majority) until April 6, 1789. Moreover, the new government commenced with just 11 state delegations. North Carolina did not ratify the U.S. Constitution until November 21, 1798, and Rhode Island became the 13th state to join the Union on May 29, 1790.

Among the new Congress’s most pressing business was to select the first president, establish the judicial system, and draft a list of protected rights. George Washington was the unanimous choice of presidential electors (now popularly called the electoral college) and was inaugurated on April 30. With the passage of the Federal Judiciary Act of 1789, Congress set the number of justices on the Supreme Court at six (one chief justice and five associate justices) and determined that justices would ride circuit and decide cases twice yearly in the nation’s capital. The Federal Judiciary Act also established the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court (as opposed to the original jurisdiction that is found in Article III, Section 2.1), created the other federal courts (so-called inferior courts), and set their jurisdiction (both original and appellate). The first Congress also made good on the Federalists’ promise to include a bill of rights.

Approximately 125 poorly constructed and often overlapping amendments were submitted for congressional consideration. James Madison and George Mason took the lead in editing, rewriting, combining, and crafting the amendments. On September 25, 1789, two thirds of both houses of Congress accepted the conference committee’s draft of proposed constitutional amendments. Those amendments were then submitted to the states for

ratification. On December 15, 1791, 10 of the 12 proposed amendments received the approval of the necessary three fourths of the states (as stipulated in Article V) to become part of the Constitution. These first 10 amendments became known collectively as the Bill of Rights.

Ironically, the first two proposed amendments did not pass. The very first proposed amendment, if ratified, would have called for one member of Congress for every 30,000 people. Had the original first amendment been ratified, there would be more than 10,130 members in the U.S. House of Representatives (based on an estimated population of 304 million). Obviously, that would be an unwieldy and unworkable assemblage. The original second amendment proscribes members of Congress from receiving pay increases until after the subsequent congressional election. Although rejected in 1791, this amendment was subsequently ratified by the states (38 states, or three quarters of the 50 states), thus becoming the 27th and last constitutional amendment on May 18, 1992—201 years after it was first rejected.

Conclusion

The Constitution of the United States is now more than 220 years old. It is the oldest functioning nation-state constitution in the world. This great document did not just happen. It was crafted out of necessity and built on the experiences and philosophies of many interrelated people. The document is quite short; it contains a preamble or short justification, 7 articles, and 27 formal alterations. Altogether, the document is just 7,606 words long, far fewer than the words in most daily newspapers’ sports sections. But the Constitution’s words mean something. They contain essential legal concepts that guide and direct the way the American people function, preserve their culture, and settle differences. It is the rock on which the American political system is built. Perhaps Henry Clay (1850) said it best: “The Constitution of the United States was made not merely for the generation that then existed, but for posterity—unlimited, undefined, endless, perpetual posterity” (para. 1).

References and Further Readings

Allen, W. B., & Lloyd, G. (1985). The essential antifederalist. Lanham, MD: University Press of America.

Amar, A. R. (2005). America’s constitution: A biography. New York: Random House.

Annenberg Learning Center: http://www.learner.org/biographyof America.com

Articles of Confederation. (1777). Available at http://www.us constitution.net/articles.html

Avalon Project: http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/avalon.htm Beard, C. A. (1913). An economic interpretation of the

Constitution. New York: Macmillan.

Founding of the American Political System • 697
Bernstein, R. B., & Agel, J. (1992). Amending America. New York:
Random House.	The life of Roger Sherman. Chicago:
Boutell, H. (1896).
A. C. McClurg.	Miracle at Philadelphia: The story of the
Bowen, C. D. (1986).
Constitutional Convention, May to September 1787. Boston:
Little, Brown.	Charles A. Beard and the Constitution.
Brown, R. E. (1956).
Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954).
Cappon, L. J. (Ed.). (1987). The Adams Jefferson letters. Chapel
Hill: University of North Carolina Press.
Center for Civic Education: http://www.civic.org
Clay, H. (1850). Speech, U.S. Senate. Available at http://www
.jrank.org/quotations/pages/329/Henry Clay.html
Collier, C., & Collier, J. L. (1986). Decision in Philadelphia: The
Constitutional Convention of 1787. New York: Ballantine.
Declaration of Independence. (1776). Available at http://www
.usconstitution.net/declar.html
Elkins, S., & McKitrick, E. (1962). The founding fathers: Young
men of the Revolution. Washington, DC: Service Center for
Teachers of History.
Ellis, J. (2002). Founding brothers: The revolutionary generation.
New York: Vintage.
Farrand, M. (1913). The framing of the Constitution of the United
States. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Federalist No. 51. (1788). The federalist papers. Available at
http://www.law.ou.edu/ushistory/federalist/federalist 50 59/
federalist.51.shtml
Franklin, B. (1787). Benjamin Franklin requests prayer in the
Constitutional Convention. Available at http://www
.constitution.org/primarysources/franklin.html
Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965).
Hall, K. L., Wiecek, W. M., & Finkelman, P. (1996). American legal
history: Cases and materials (2nd ed.). New York: Oxford
University Press.
Hamilton, A., Madison, J., & Jay, J. (1961). The federalist
papers. New York: New American Library.
Hobbes, T. (1904). Leviathan (A. R. Waller, Ed.). Cambridge,
UK: Cambridge University Press. (Original work published
1651)
Hobbes, T. (1909 1914). Of man, being the first part of Leviathan.
Available at http://www.bartleby.com/34/5/13.html
Hofstadter, R. (1948).	The American political tradition and the
men who made it. New York: Random House.
Jensen, M. (1940). The Articles of Confederation: An interpretation
of the social constitutional history of the American Revolution,
1744 1781. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
Ketchman, R. (Ed.). (1986). The anti federalist papers; and, the
Constitutional Convention debates. New York: New
American Library.
Kurland, P. B., & Learner, R. (Eds.). (1987). The founders’
Constitution. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lee, R. H. (1776).	Independence resolution. Available at

http://www.usconstitution.net/leeindep.html

Library of Congress: http://www.americaslibrary.gov/cgi bin/ page.cgi Two treatises of government.

Locke, J. (1764). London: A. Millar.

(Original work published 1689)

Magna Carta. (1215). Available at http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/ source/magnacarta.html

698 • AMERICAN POLITICS

Martin, L. (1911). The origin and growth of the American Constitution. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. 316 (1819).

McDonald, F. (1985).

McDonald, F. (1976). We the people. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Novus ordo seclorum: The intellectual ori

gins of the Constitution. Lawrence: University of Kansas Press.

Missouri v. Holland, 252 U.S. 416 (1920). The spirit of the laws Montesquieu, C., Baron de Secondat. (1989). .

(A. M. Cohler, B. C. Miller, & H. S. Stone, Eds. & Trans.) Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. (Original work published 1748)

Patrick, J. (2005). The Bill of Rights: A history in documents.

New York: Oxford University Press.

Peltason, J. W., & Davis, S. (2000). Corwin & Peltason’s Under standing the Constitution. New York: Harcourt Brace.

Pennsylvania v. Nelson, 350 U.S. 497 (1956).

Rakove, J. N. (1979). The beginnings of national politics: An interpretive history of the Continental Congress. New York: Alfred Knopf.

Rakove, J. N. (1997). Original meanings: Politics and ideas in the making of the Constitution. New York: Vintage.

Resolution of Congress. (1787). Available at http://www.consource

.org/index.asp?bid 582&documentid 71375 Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973).

Rossiter, C. (1966). 1787: The grand convention. New York: Macmillan.

Rousseau, J. J. (1997). “The social contract” and other later polit ical writings (V. Gourevitch, Trans.). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Storing, H. J. (1981). What the anti federalists were for. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Sunstein, C. R. (2001). Designing democracy: What constitutions do. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Tribe, L., & Dorf, M. C. (1991). On reading the Constitution. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

University of Virginia: http://www.virginia.edu/pjm/home.html U.S. Constitution. (1787). Available at http://www.usconstitution

Vile, J. R. (1996).

.net/const.htmlEncyclopedia of constitutional amendments

and amending issues. Santa Barbara, CA: ABC CLIO.