Difference Between Crises Of 1780s, Now? Just 200 Years

November 3, 1985|By Edmund F. Kallina, Special to The Sentinel

The problems of the mid-'80s are clear. The national debt is mounting and Congress is unable or unwilling to act. The United States suffers one humiliation after another at the hands of foreign powers. American citizens are seized and held hostage by Arab pirates. America's largest trading partner floods this country with its products while excluding American goods from its markets.

This litany of national woes is an apt description of the problems that faced the United States . . . in the mid-1780s.

As we approach the 200th anniversary of the Constitution of the United States it is well to remember that it was not the first basic document of American government. That honor goes to the Articles of Confederation, drafted in 1776-77, ratified in 1781 and finally superseded by the Constitution in 1789.

Today, few know of the Articles and fewer care, but it provided the basis for the greatest governing document in history, the U.S. Constitution. It also serves as a potent reminder: The anti-Washington cry of states rights, while appealing, cannot produce a great nation.

If it is necessary to understand the Articles to understand the Constitution, it also is necessary to grasp American society in the 1780s to comprehend the Articles. Part of the difference between the United States of 1985 and the country of 1785 is simply a matter of size. It wasn't just smaller geographically. The population of America then was less than 2 percent of today's.

Moreover, the United States of 1785 was in a world that was pre- industrial, pre-technological, pre-nationalist and pre-democratic. Life held hardships and danger; material comforts were few.

Perhaps because of these factors, the dominant values and fears of the 1780s were much less materialistic. The overwhelming concern was for liberty and freedom. The paramount fear was of the tyranny that had resulted from centralized government and executive authority.

This fear had led to the American Revolution when the Colonists became convinced that the British government was conspiring to deprive them of their freedom. Though the Revolution had been successful in throwing off British despotism, few were convinced that the threat of tyranny had been exterminated.

This obsession with the dangers of centralized government and executive authority explains a great deal about the Articles of Confederation. The Articles provided for no chief executive officer and no national court system. It gave the Congress no power to tax or to regulate interstate commerce. Any amendment to the Articles required approval by all of the states before it could take effect.

From today's perspective this charter of government was impractical, irrational and unworkable. From the perspective of 1785 it made perfect sense. It was the kind of document that was most likely to protect individuals and states from the ever-grasping power of the central government. If the Articles were to prevent a powerful central government from meddling in states' affairs and threatening individual freedoms, then there's little doubt it succeeded marvelously.

For the past few decades historians and political scientists have debated whether the replacement of the Articles by the Constitution was necessary. Could the United States have survived and prospered as an independent government under the Articles? Most academics probably would agree that the country could have survived. Most scholars now believe that by 1787 the general health of the individual states was good enough to ensure their survival.

So why was the Philadelphia convention called and the U.S Constitution ratified? The answer lies in a small but deeply committed band of nationalists who found the Articles unworthy of the American Revolution. While a majority of inhabitants of the former British Colonies conceived of the Revolution as an effort to rid themselves of an external meddling force, others saw it in a different light. Men like George Washington, Alexander Hamilton and James Madison believed the Revolution was about more than the sovereignty of Delaware and Rhode Island. To them the Revolution had given rise to a nation destined for greatness.

Such individuals were dismayed with the shabby, avaricious character of American society and the impotent nature of government under the Articles. They tried to transform the Articles, chiefly through an amendment that would have given the government the power to raise revenue by collecting a tax on imports. When this proposal failed, they turned their attention to calling a convention of the states for the implicit, if unannounced purpose of rewriting the Articles.

At first their chances of success were small. The status quo had its vehement defenders: state politicians and legislators who had no interest in divesting any of their considerable power even on behalf of a noble and great cause.

Orlando Sentinel Articles