The
last posting shared and described four arguments the scholar Daniel Elazar
presents regarding the work of the founding fathers at the Constitutional
Convention of 1787. These four are the
first of five arguments and they are,
1.
The
Constitution was written by a committee.
2.
It
was written as a political document, not a legal contract.
3.
As
such, its terminology reflects current fashion as well as precise usage and
strives for ambiguity where it was deemed politically necessary to do so.
4.
The
framers of the Constitution draw upon more than one major source of ideas for
their understanding of federalism.[1]
This
posting will focus on the fifth argument:
“The Federalist [Papers by Madison, Hamilton, and Jay],
valuable as it is as a work of political thought and exposition of the
Constitution, is not the whole commentary on the subject.”[2]
This
blog introduced this last argument by highlighting what Elazar emphasizes; it
stated, “Collectively,
the common opinion is that these writings … [were] the product of three
sources: classical education, … Hobbesian-Lockean
social contract [theory] … and the writings of the Enlightenment thinkers.” To these and of more importance is the influence
of the “Biblical-Reformed-Puritan tradition.
But, Elazar adds, however one attributes influence, be it the
classical/political theory view or the Puritanical view, “[b]oth traditions
address the idea and practice federalism.”[3]
To demonstrate this, Elazar claims
that the classical/political theory view contextualizes federalist unions as
confederations and as such limits the view as a political arrangement that
forms a permanent league but maintains sovereignty with the units constituting
the league – an ascription that describes more accurately the polity formed by
the Articles of Confederation. On
the other hand, the Puritanical view has a theological base – a federal
theology.
Within that latter construct, the
agreement forming the union is a covenant (or foedus) which, by design,
grounds a resulting union and any such human relationships as part of the
original covenant between God and man.
This is originally described in the Bible and is followed through with
subsequent pacts. One can describe a
religiously sanctioned marriage agreement as such a union. This mode of associating, emanating from the Judeo
tradition, had evolved to be a viable theo-political model by the mid-eighteenth
century.
Varied from the classical notion of a
polis – a completely self-defined political entity which could collaborate with
other poleis in some form of league – the Biblical framework allows for unions
of polities under a shared common law and developed institutions. And it was this latter view that took hold
throughout New England. The first to do
so was Connecticut. It was created by
bringing together various settlements – towns – under unambiguous federal
principles; that being a mixture of religious and political principles.
The agreement in Connecticut is known
as the Fundamental Orders of Connecticut and note its date, 1639, only
nineteen years after the Mayflower Compact was proclaimed. And Elazar is quick to point out that the
heirs of this earlier federalist founding authored the most important compromise
at the Constitutional Convention forming the United States as a federal union,
i.e., the Connecticut Compromise.
Elazar goes on to cite the work of
Donald S. Lutz.[4] This political scientist did an extensive
document review of the Constitutional Convention and of the writings of that
time and reports convincingly, according to Elazar, that the founders ubiquitously
and powerfully relied on the Biblical-Reformed-Puritan tradition in the writing
and adopting of the final Constitution.
That is, “Lutz found that the Bible was the most cited source by
far. Indeed, the Book of Deuteronomy, with
its discussion of the Mosaic constitution for Israel, alone is cited more than
any other source.”[5]
One factor that is often overlooked, and
Elazar points out, is that The Federalist Papers were written and
distributed initially to a New York audience.
By that time, New Yorkers had become fairly secular in their outlooks –
had developed what Elazar calls an “individualistic political culture” – and a
heavy dose of Biblical references could probably be a turn off. As for
the rest of the states, one found either the Puritanical tradition or the
Scotch-Irish Presbyterian tradition being established and they, those
Americans, were more apt to listen to Biblical references.
So, what can one judge The
Federalist Papers’ to be in terms of reflecting the thoughts of the
founding fathers? Yes, they are useful,
but in no terms should they be considered the sole authoritative source or
commentary on why the Constitution is what it is. Further, since the Constitution lays
down the basic model of the polity, even if subsequent changes during the
history of the US – for example, the secular turn toward a marketplace economy in
the late nineteenth century – the basic ground rules remained federal.
As such, all variances to the
values and principles of governance and politics swarmed around this basic
commitment – that of a federated citizenry.
That is, federalism remained the ultimate standard by which to judge
these variances, even in New York of the late 1700s. This blog aims to offer more evidence to this
claim, but as for the Constitutional Convention, this blogger feels comfortable
with the role that Elazar, Lutz, and others ascribe to federalism in the
writing and adoption of the US Constitution.
[1]
Daniel J. Elazar, “How Federal Is the Constitution? Thoroughly!” In a booklet of readings, Readings for Classes Taught by Professor
Elazar (1994), prepared for
a National Endowment for the Humanities Institute. Conducted in Steamboat
Springs, Colorado, 1-30, 3-4.
[2] Ibid.
[3] Ibid., 5.
[4] In full disclosure, Dr. Lutz served on this blogger’s
doctoral committee.
[5] Elazar, “How Federal Is the Constitution? Thoroughly!,” 7.
No comments:
Post a Comment