The Founding Fathers: A Reform Caucus in Action

1. The Founding Fathers:A Reform Caucus in Action John P Roche 1961

2. Introduction • Was the Constitution a mastery of government theory? • Was is a lucky stroke at the right time? • Was it the work of political skill and democratic approbation? • It was a national reform caucus of skilled political enemies working out a definitive goal.

3. Summary • The view of the founding fathers has changed, making them more conservative than they really were. • They were clearly revolutionaries and democratic as well. • They were not idealistic or divine, but practical politicians. • They were, in fact acting on behalf of the people they represented.

4. Summary • The convention could not have endeavored to change the union unless the states had not first agreed. • Everyone had their own agendas, and all the politics behind it. • All gave up some interests in order to get the compromises. • Being in the body made them more national in their approach.

5. Summary • Support for the Constitutional cause came in • George Washington • Their communication skills • Their pre-emptive work • The collective purpose of the revolution • They worked hard to create a following • It is easier to argue for some kind of reform than to oppose none

6. Summary • The organized opposition and the use of the state legislature appointments prove that the process was more democratic. • Madison’s Virginia plan got the group moving toward a new document. • There were no clear ideological differences. • The secrecy of their meeting prove a certain amount of discourse.

7. Summary • We should not see the balance of federalism as newly invented but as a settled argument. • It was not what Madison wanted at all. • He preferred national power and authority to punish states. • He even got initial approval for his plan. • The push back came form the small states • He had no choice but to relax his nationalist point of view.

8. Summary • Delegates were representing the views of their constituents and ended up compromising the ideal. • Even those in opposition to the Constitutionalists preferred to strengthening the government. • The opposition only wanted fairness for the other states.

9. Summary • Compromise was difficult because of self-interest. • They needed more compromises to get policy-making away from the mob. • Hamilton stepped out of negotiations frustrated. • The real difference only in counting representation.

10. Summary • After weeks of debate, they put a committee to work on the representation issue. • The committee was made up of moderate compromisers. • The framers were not wedded to a political theory. • Once compromise on representation was reached then the original central plan moved forward.

11. Summary • The position of the executive was a tough issue. • The electoral college was a win for all parties. • Most thought the electoral college would never get a majority and the president would always be elected by the House. • The electoral college was a political compromise meant to help the negotiations move on.

12. Summary • There were economic and political problems over the issue of slavery, but morality was not contested. • They traded the slave count on one side over a super majority on navigation on the other. • The compromise would reconcile the south to the east. • The legislature seemed to have great freedom and no challenge from the courts.

13. Summary • These were busy men, with other work, set on getting the job done. • Only personal hang ups kept people from endorsing the draft. • They had to work to get ratification. • It was political maneuvering that got the Constitution that got the Constitution ratified. • Madison used great rhetorical skill to win.

14. Summary • Working out the details came next. • We still wonder about the intent on the document, but must remember the context of its writing. • Ambiguity was a weapon for completing the work. • Be careful not to elevate the men or the words.

15. Summary • Rather than ideal political philosophy, the Constitution was great politics. • Political scientists today see more philosophy than the framers did. • It is better for others to copy the process than the document.