WERE THE FOUNDING FATHERS DEMOCRATIC REFORMERS?
The 1787 Philadelphia Convention was where the Founding Fathers designed and developed the American Constitution, developing a new central foundation for this newly independent country. One of the immediate results of the American Constitution was a robust representative national government, which contributed to political discussion for subsequent years. The primary issue being explored by these scholars, John P. Roche and Howard Zinn, is whether the Founding Fathers were activists or not. According to Roche, the Founding Fathers were democratic reformers who developed the Constitution for the common good of the United States and its population. On the other hand, Zinn acknowledges that the Founding Fathers were affluent white men that took advantage of the Constitution to protect their interests and those for the upper class in the society, all while discriminating against the Indians, slaves, and white settlers.
Roche’s primary claim is that the Founding Fathers were astute democratic politicians that entered into a pact of a pragmatic compromise, which would both strengthen the state interest and be welcome to the population. He posits that the article of the Confederation had some flaws and was thus ineffective because it did not provide the government with judicial powers, that were required for a successive and robust democracy. Roche defines the 1787 Constitutional Convention as a reform caucus, which implies that the Constitution Convention was held so that the Founding Fathers could design a document that will bring together the newly developed democratic government[1]. Most historians have faulted the Founding Fathers of creating the government to protect their interests. Roche claims that the Founding Fathers were acting on behalf of the Americans, and were taking advantage of the Constitution to protect their investments. Roche states that the Constitution Convention was a Convention of compromise, instead of one dissenting group fighting for their interests. The majority have argued that one of the primary obstructions of the Constitutional Convention was divergent opinion; however, Roche observes that the Founding Father’s different views were structural instead of ideological.
Throughout the document, Roche provides various illustrations to support his general ground. He uses the Connecticut Compromise, New Jersey Plan, and the Virginia Plan as prime illustrations of how compromise was a national theme in the Constitutional Convention. For instance, The Virginia Plan would have had the larger states to the main forces of the nations. Proponents of the New Jersey Plan mainly centered on the responsibilities of the Virginia Plan, zeroing on the protection of small states instead of attacking and criticizing the whole document. Finally, the Connecticut Compromise was arrived at since it developed the bilateral judicial argan of government. Roche’s definition of the development of the Three-Fifths backs up the concept that the Founding Fathers were doing it for the common good[2].
Contrary to Roche, Zinn observed that the Founding Fathers capitalized on the Constitution to safeguard the interests of the rich people of the society. Zinn posits that nearly all affiliates of the Constitutions Convention had a bestowed interest in developing a stable centralized government because the majority of the representatives mostly constituted of affluent attorneys, proprietors, and slave dealers[3]. Zinn documents that the Founding Fathers were not democratic reformers because their whole concept of democracy largely exonerated Indians, slaves, and women. They were using the Constitution as a meeting of a faction of men championing and safeguarding their interests, while at the same time providing freedom adequate for the people to ensure support for subsequent years.
There is a sense in which, “The American Scholar” by Ralph Waldo Emerson gives me some insight of what a real reformer should look like when he presented a lecture to the Phi Beta Kappa Society in 1837 at Harvard University to the twenty-five high achievers learners from graduating class[4]. In his lecture, he presented his ideas and ideals to the best and brightest young scholars on what the real American scholar should be. He praised the graduates for their endless love of letters, which was a clear demonstration that Emerson believed that one day they would congregate together to celebrate some collective literary accomplishment. In my view, Emerson was a real reformer. He understood that for America to become great mental empowerment was a must. Thus, I can conclusively state that the Founding Fathers were not true reformers because they always prioritized their interests. Precisely, they needed a constitution that would protect their interests and those of their precious friends. I believe that is why Emerson condemned contemporary American society as being excessively greedy and hugely reliant on mainly European philosophers to guide their own decisions and thoughts. Emerson believed that the American intellectual exists in the wellbeing of all people and that this self-owned academic force could aid the state to transcend its challenges, something that our so-called Founding Fathers were not championing.
Bibliography
Emerson, Ralph Waldo. The American Scholar. BiblioBytes, 2001.
Roche, John P. “The founding fathers: A reform caucus in action.” American Political Science Review 55, no. 4 (1961): 799-816.
Zinn, H., 2015. A people’s history of the United States: 1492-present. Routledge.
[1] Roche, John P. “The founding fathers: A reform caucus in action.” American Political Science Review 55, no. 4 (1961): 799-816.
[2] Roche, John P. “The founding fathers: A reform caucus in action.” American Political Science Review 55, no. 4 (1961): 799-816.
[3] Zinn, H., 2015. A people’s history of the United States: 1492-present. Routledge.
[4] Emerson, Ralph Waldo. The American Scholar. BiblioBytes, 2001.