During the ten months after the Constitutional Convention, an "standing miracle" occurred. The Debate in Virginia began. You had Federalists on one side, and Antifederalists on the other. The Federalists were an outgoing, energetic, and loud party. While the Antifederalists tried to make their points in a quiet manner. Antifederalists were considered "men of little faith" by a historian who thought that saying was meant for bad. The Antifederalists were "men of little faith", they had little faith, and feared for the new government that may have come. The Anti's didn't want a consolidated government, because a government such as that would be hungry for power. So the Anti's moved forward the idea of having a "we the people" kind of government, having representatives for all of the citizens of the U.S to understand what the people want. James Madison told the Anti's that no one could exist, it would have to much authorities who would want to take over for their own selfish gain. However the Anti's retaliated with their proud words of how that these representatives would be protecting Americans from hostile takeovers from the Revolutionary War, by having these people with true republican faith. What the Federalists wanted to do was to contest a offer of coherent rebuttal that made the Constitution look like a rescue, rather then a betrayal. Later in the debate, Madison and Hamilton were presenting almost the same facts in the same way, so the teammates had to split up. But it wasn't just for the same facts, they even started arguing about some of each others beliefs. Madison was starting to somewhat agree about having a "we the people" government, While Hamilton was strongly disagreeing. Thus the splitting up.
Later in November and December of 1788, the Publius essays where written. The Essays reiterated the arguments he had made in Philadelphia. Alliances were made, but they were unstable forms of government. So they weren't going to last, but they ended up with the Federalists, so they lasted a bit longer.
In the following January of 1789, Madison's message began to change. He felt that the Anti's where on the right track, although he didn't join them. He still believed that the Anti's weren't that far off from making the right kind of government for their new country. Madison then explained the new way of his feelings to everyone, some agreed, others didn't. Therefore, he wanted to change his position in his group and step down for a little while. Later a man named Patrick Henry entered into the debate, this roused suspicion for Madison. He didn't like the way he smelled, which was like a "rat".
Madison then stepped back in to try and stop this madness. Madison unfortunately was right, Henry was throwing "thunderbolt" speeches left and right just to hide his true intentions. Henry blocked passage for several years of the bill for religious freedom, which was what started the entire pilgrim, and Revolutionary War was founded on. But the way Henry spoke to the people, made them believe in him. Madison had to persuade the people to listen to reason, thus the begin of the Clash of the Titans. Henry was animated, passionate, spoke without notes, and combined the appearance of an actor and a powerful minister in a big church. Where as Madison was calm with his words, so calm that the stenographer couldn't hear most of his words. Madison appeared in a humble manner, and used notes to appear professional. John Marshall said that "Mr. Henry without a doubt the greatest power to persuade". Whereas "Mr. Madison had the greatest power to convince. Because Henry was very loud and outgoing, that he fired a full salvo aimed to strike every single premise in the Federalist case for ratification. Then America was close to anarchy, and the Articles were about to expire? No these are just scarred citizens who feared Henry and his voice. However Henry believed that the Virginian economy was agreeing with Henry, and then minding there own business. It was sort of a "pursuit of happiness", how they would agree on the outside, but completely disagree on the inside. Arguments began about the Articles, some believed they were inaccurate. "The Confederation..." someone said, "carried us through a long and dangerous war. It rendered us victorious in that bloody conflict with a powerful nation. It has secured us a territory greater then any European monarch possesses. And shall a Government this strong and vigorous be accused of imbecility for want of energy?" What this means is that this person had doubts on having Henry or some one like him, to be leading the new country. Then later, people started to understand the "We the people." Because if the debaters said "we the states." Then the new Americans wouldn't feel together as one nation. There fore they kept we the people. Later Henry objected to the claim that Virginia's deliberations were merely an irrelevant epilogue to a story with a foregone conclusion. Although most of the little nation agreed with the plan, Henry wanted to change there minds and have them see his side of his view. However if the entire nation agreed with him, then he would reject. This would probably be, because the entire nation would then surrender and give up. Henry may have been irrational, but I don't think he was that irrational. Over the next few days, Madison delivered two lengthy speeches that took the form of a point-by-point rebuttal of Henry's presentation. These two undisputed champions couldn't be in any one of the groups because of the way they thought, almost to a point where they had to be kicked out of the debate. However, there speeches were so good, that they just couldn't be taken away from the debates.
Much time later, Henry then argued about how the Constitution may have created a consolidated government that essentially annihilated state power. If he read it carefully, the Henry might have a winning chance for his side. However, Madison observed that his own fears were about to vanish. Because he then discovered that the idea might have been a unique creation. Madison said, "It is in a manner unprecedented... It stands by itself. In some respects it is a Government of a federal nature; in others it is of a consolidated nature." This 'hybrid' creature rendered Henry's flamboyant accusations irrelevant because "We the people" did not refer to "the people as composing one great body --- but the people as composing thirteen separate sovereignties." It seemed that Henry wasn't fully comprehending the significance of the entire nation. Hoverer Henry adjusted to the whole idea and eventually agreed to it, but not whole heartily. Madison concluded, "is of a complication, and this complication, I trust, will be found to exclude the evils of absolute consolidation, as well of a mere confederacy." (This was said about the proposal of the Constitution)
The genius of Madison's argument for a version of sovereignty that was at once shared and divided raised the whole pragmatic and politically painful compromises reached at the Constitutional Convention to the level of a novel political discovery: to wit, the notion that government was not about providing answers, but rather about providing framework in which the salient questions could continue to be debated.
Instead of fatal weakness, the debate survived without Bloodshed to help. Words inflicted damage, instead of bullets or swords. The Debate ended in one of the best ways possible. However in later times, minor and major civil wars would eventually break out. Even when the Debate was over, many of the men in it would fight each other just to "prove themselves" to each other. The Debate ended in Federalist's favor, with slight alterations to adjust to the living standards for the "people." Over all, the Debate ended. Some pleased, others not. And Thus the beginning for the new country.
No comments:
Post a Comment