Richard Beeman. Plain, Honest Men: The Making of the American
Constitution. New York: Random House, 2009.
As reviewed by Ted Odenwald
Years after the ratification of our nation’s Constitution, George Washington and Thomas Jefferson would both express their belief that the document “was the instrument that not only held a political entity –the union—together, but also which helped define Americans as one people.” Richard Beeman meticulously examines the day-to-day- struggles of the convention, which for months undertook the drafting of this great document. One must consider the disparate motives of the 57 representatives to this convention, the hostile exchanges among members, the bull-headed refusal to look beyond how one’s state would be affected by a centralized government, and the preponderance of rich, landowning delegates primarily concerned with protecting their possessions. Also, there was a widespread disregard of the common people, and a lack of concern about the moral issues of slavery. Unchecked egos and temperaments led to virulent quarrels. Given all of these roadblocks, the fact that anything positive came out of the convention may have been miraculous.
The convention began as a committee called by the Continental Congress to address weaknesses in the Articles of Confederation. These articles amounted to a treaty among the 13 states—a treaty in which each retained sovereignty. The unifying central government had little power, and each decision had to be supported by all of the colonies; additionally, the central government could not levy taxes or compel states to pay their fair share. Lack of funds had led to the confederation’s inability to pay, dress, and arm its military during the Revolutionary War, and 10 years later, the same penury left the governing body unable to pay war debts to France and Holland. Robert Morris, the appointed Superintendent of Finance for the continental government, was the closest thing that the confederation had to a chief executive. But his powers were extremely limited, as when his attempt to impose an import tax was defeated because the vote was not unanimous. While many delegates to the convention showed little enthusiasm about this committee—delaying their arrival because of “sloth and bad weather”—the representatives of Virginia and Pennsylvania seized the opportunity to plan a strategy for dismantling the Articles of Confederation altogether and to construct a new central government while still allowing the individual states to govern themselves. The seven-day delay allowed PA and VA representatives to confer, unite, and eventually drive their agenda past disorganized dissenters.
Had these two delegations not conferred, the entire convention would most likely have failed, for there was a natural rivalry between large and small states. The small states wanted equal representation in the new congress thus retaining much of the power they had had in the Confederation through the ability to veto. The larger states wanted proportional representation (some members actually wanted the proportions to be based on property as well as population). Complicating the issue was the southern states’ insistence upon having a fraction of their slaves being counted as if they were citizens—so as to gain more representatives. Another issue was the power of the congress as opposed to that of the chief executive. There was also the concern that by granting power to a chief executive, the states would be abdicating their sovereignty and reinventing the tyranny from which the colonies had separated.
For four months the delegates argued, bargained, lectured, whined, and hectored in closed session, all promising not to reveal any information to their constituents or to the general public. The final product shocked the Continental Congress in that the convention had gone far beyond the directives given it. The product, sent to each state, passed, but with some key drawbacks. Fearing loss of states’ rights, several legislatures registered positive votes that were contingent upon the passage of a Bill of Rights. Also, to assure passage, and to avoid the threat of withdrawal from the union by southern states, a compromise regarding slavery was reached. Basically the institution was allowed to continue, viewed by most delegates as a “necessary evil.” “Sadly, there were no moral heroes to be found in the story of slavery and the making of the American Constitution.”
The daily proceedings reveal the fascinatingly divergent paths of motivation, logic, verbal skill, self-interest, and magnanimity. Equally interesting are Beeman’s character sketches of several of the delegates. Where would our histories of the Founding Fathers be without George Washington and Benjamin Franklin? Both were imposing presences at the convention, but neither made concrete contributions to the final product. Although he did not want to be there, Washington was convinced to attend because of his “calm and deliberative leadership.” Madison had sent the General a letter outlining his plans to form a radically new government which would include a powerful executive branch. Franklin, whose “approach to politics was always pragmatic,” served as the “embodiment of compromise.” Although most of Franklin’s suggestions were politely ignored, his very presence apparently helped to prevent chaos. James Madison “would provide the combination of intellectual firepower and dogged persistence that animated the convention.” He worked tirelessly to develop a strong central government, through ideas later spelled out in the Federalist Papers (also composed by Alexander Hamilton and John Jay). Beeman notes that Madison changed his mind a number of times about several issues, evidence of how new and relatively shapeless the overall concepts could be.
Beeman introduces many of the significant delegates, and highlights their personalities, their motivations, their political maneuverings and their contributions. Elbridge Gery (MA), the most contrary member, feared that too much democracy would give excessive power to the ignorant classes; he was joined by Pierce Butler (SC), an elitist, who believed that only the wealthy and planter-gentry men such as he were fit to run the country. Intellectual and methodical in his planning, James Wilson (PA) developed a “coherent and comprehensive conception of the American presidency.” He had to tread delicately because he had been driven out of Philadelphia years before as a Tory sympathizer. As he did not trust the “lower seats,” his “democratic faith was philosophical rather than instinctive.” Roger Sherman (CT), a clever organizer and politician, took the lead in framing some of the convention’s key compromises, including the decision to give each state equal representation in the Senate, while having proportional representation in the House of Representatives. Charles Pinckney (SC) continually threatened to withdraw from both the convention and the Confederation if his state’s demands were not met—particularly the right of a state to retain its sovereignty and the right of slave states to maintain the slavery-based economy unhindered by laws of the central government. Interestingly, he would later claim that he was the author of the Constitution.
In spite of the large of never-ending arguments, the Constitution was finally pieced together, first by a Detail Committee, which organized and collated all of the key agreements. Next the Style Committee addressed the wording of the final product, at times perhaps altering the original intent of a certain item. For example, the preamble of the Articles of Confederation had states retain sovereign power. The preamble of the Detail Committee suggested that it was “the people, acting through the agency of their respective states, who had sovereign power.” However, the Style Committee’s final wording suggested that the people of the entire nation possessed sovereign power.
The constitutional convention was a first step in the forming of “a more perfect union.” “The Constitution that emerged…was in many respects unmistakably republican…[rejecting] notions of hereditary monarchy and aristocracy, and while it stopped short of creating a democratic republic, including an indirectly elected senate and president, it did recognize “We the people” of the nation as the ultimate source of political power.
Ted Odenwald and his wife, Shirley have lived in Oakland for 43 years. He taught HS English at Glen Rock High School for all of those years plus one more. Now he is enjoying time spent with his family, singing in the North Jersey Chorus and quenching his wanderlust. Ted is also the Worship Leader at the Ramapo Valley Baptist Church in Oakland.