It
is nice to see some in conservative circles openly proclaim that the Philadelphia
Constitution of 1787 is not the greatest act of political wisdom the world has
ever known (or will ever know). Here is
a bit of what Bradley Birzer (whose book on Tolkien, J. R. R. Tolkien’s Sanctifying
Myth, is well worth reading. The bolding
below has been added.):
The Articles of
Confederation have been denounced for so long that no one bothers to denounce
them anymore. Almost every American and almost every single person around the
world who studies American history at any level considers the Articles a
failure. The failure of the Articles is as sure as the sun rising tomorrow.
It’s just an accepted “truism” that they did not work and that we Americans
needed something to replace them.
Even
those who take seriously the criticisms of the Constitution by
the anti-Federalists typically believe the Articles a disaster.
A close examination,
however, reveals that Articles were quite successful at several things,
including: 1) keeping the peace (overall); 2) securing as well as keeping our
independence; and 3) passing the most powerful piece of legislation in the
history of republics, The Northwest Ordinance.
As to the first claim,
historians often dismiss this by citing Daniel Shays and his uprising as a
clear example of the failure of the Articles. If we do, however, we must state
the exact same thing about the U.S. Constitution and its “failure” to prevent
South Carolina from seceding in late 1860. Shays, however, did not want to
secede. He merely wanted to get the government to take the demands of western
Massachusetts farmers seriously. That he did so through violence was nothing
new or exceptional. One might even readily argue that such a course had always
been the course of last resort under the English Common Law.
That we remember the
Articles poorly has far more to do with the ultimate success—in and out of the
academy—of American nationalists than it does with actual failure or success of
the Articles themselves.
. . .
Even a cursory glance
at the Articles as finally ratified reveals why the American nationalists would
despise it so much.
Article II: Each
state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power,
jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated
to the United States, in Congress assembled.
Article III: The said
States hereby severally enter into a firm league of friendship with each other,
for their common defense, the security of their liberties, and their mutual and
general welfare, binding themselves to assist each other, against all force
offered to, or attacks made upon them, or any of them, on account of religion,
sovereignty, trade, or any other pretense whatever.
With these two
Articles alone, the United States far more resembles a United Nations than it
does a united nation. And, again, the fact that they referred to each other as
“embassies” is telling as well.
Of course, I
certainly do not want to suggest—or even give the impression—that the Articles
were perfect or that life under the Articles was perfect. They were not, and it
was not. Yet, the case if not nearly as bad as history and historians have
deemed it to be. The Constitution has had its own set of problems. If the
Articles allowed for too much de-centralization, the Constitution has allowed
for too much separation. If the Articles failed to separate powers broadly
enough, the Constitution is equally to blame. If the Articles did not prevent
an uprising, the Constitution has done even worse. As I write this, the chief
threat to our liberties and dignities as a people is from Article II of the
Constitution. Had the executive power under the Articles expanded in a
similar fashion, Congress would have restricted it immediately. As it is, under
the Constitution, the legislative branch has behaved in an utterly cowardly
fashion, allowing the president to behave as Caesar and dictator.
Yes, the Articles had
problems, but the Constitution has had more. Under the Articles, we defeated
the greatest empire in the world, we maintained stability (and unity) at home,
and we passed the greatest law ever passed in a republic, the Old Northwest
Ordinance, with its pro-Indian, anti-slavery, pro-Common Law, and anti-imperial
provisions. Not bad for a brand-new republic. Indeed, not bad for any
government, anywhere or anytime.
I’ll give the
Articles three cheers, any day of the week.
--
Holy Ælfred the Great, King of England,
South Patron, pray for us sinners at the Souð,
unworthy though we are!
Anathema to the Union!
No comments:
Post a Comment