In The West Wing

President Shrimpo 0:01
Hello, my name is President Shrimpo. And you are listening to in the West Wing, an American political history podcast brought to you by WKNC 88.1. In this first episode, we will be taking a look at America under the Articles of Confederation, and the factors that led to the eventual adoption of our current constitution and the development of the institution of the American presidency.

In order to understand what state America was in, during this period, we need to look back to the revolution. Now, I'm not going to spend a lot of time discussing, you know, the events of the Revolutionary War. But I do want you to understand the sort of popular opinion that existed at the time, and what led to eventually the adoption of our current constitution and the existence of the American presidency. At the time, revolution really had a limited appeal to the average person. John Adams at the time estimated that the population was roughly split into thirds: 1/3 in support of the revolution, 1/3 opposed to the revolution, and 1/3 neutral. This, of course, was not necessarily how the population broke up at the time in regards to support. However, it does point to that people at the time recognized that the revolution did not have a majority of support. It simply just had the strongest support. Revolutionary leadership during this period was comprised of a local elite. At the time, Alexander Hamilton said, quote,

Alexander Hamilton 2:03
Our countrymen have all the folly of the ass and all the passiveness of the sheep, they're determined not to be free.

President Shrimpo 2:09
And we have to sort of wonder, why didn't they want freedom and that maybe that's because the average person didn't see independence as freedom. Most of the fighting done during the Revolution was done by the poor, and the dispossessed. Generally tenant farmers or those who lacked land in general. Most people, well maybe not most, but many, very least, saw both sides as a ruling elite, regardless of which side won. You know, with the British elite off in London, and then a local elite of the American wealthy upper class. So it's sort of understandable why, say, for example, many southern states lacked the sort of fervor that many northern states did, because the average farmer in the south didn't really see an improvement in the quality of their life, regardless of which side won. And I think a great sort of thing to look at in understanding why this is, is looking at the constitutions of the original 13 colonies. Now, during the British colonial period, we did have local rule to some extent, with elected officials, both for governor and for state legislatures. And in order to run and to vote in these elections, you need to hold property. In Maryland, the state constitution in 1776, required gubernatorial candidates to hold 5000 pounds worth of property and required those running for state senator to hold 1000 pounds. That essentially excluded 90% of the entire state's population from running or holding political office. This even excluded large portions of the white male population of the states, which we generally assume, to have held the greatest political sway over the course of American history. One would assume that during the Revolutionary period, states would move away from these sort of highly elitist wealth-based forms of representation, especially for revolution that was espousing freedom and equality and justice for all. And we did see many states lower the property requirements, but only Pennsylvania of the original 13 colonies fully dropped the requirements for property holding. And some states, such as Massachusetts, even raised the property requirements, excluding an even larger portion of the state's population from holding political office. Now, for a, you know, revolutionary movement that espoused equality and justice, one could maybe think that there would be some form of land distribution in which society on a foundational level would be made more free and fair and equal. And we did see some property redistribution but that was usually from the seizure of property of loyalists land holders, and then a distribution of that sometimes to their tenants, but generally to other wealthy landowners. While this did increase the number of independent land holders and farmers in the States, it didn't fundamentally change the economic system that allowed for the wealthy upper class to dominate American society. Rather than a serious foundational change, we see a shuffling of the economic elite, and political elite in the country. George Washington, for example, was one of the wealthiest men in America, if not the wealthiest has were many of the other founding fathers. These were plantation owners, these were major printers, in the case of Benjamin Franklin. These were wealthy merchants and industrialists. These people did not represent the vast majority of America's population, which was rural and poor. But they did represent the elite of American society. And so with that, we need to look then, to the governing document that this country had, at the time, the Articles of Confederation prior to our Constitution, we existed under the document known as the Articles of Confederation, adopted in 1777. This document would be used up until 1787. Actually, the American Constitution that we have today was drafted in 1787. But it did not fully go into effect until 1789. So really, the Articles of Confederation existed essentially, from 1777 to 1789. But, you know, that's semantics. This was not the sort of governmental structure that we have today. And I think some of the features of the Articles of Confederation would seem alien to us today. For example, rather than having a Senate or House of Representatives, each state was simply granted a single vote in the Continental Congress. All powers not explicitly granted to the federal government, were held exclusively by the states. And the document itself does not describe the union that is the United States of America as a unified country. Rather, it describes the country as a league of friendship. That sort of points to an understanding of America at the time, more like a loose coalition of smaller allied countries rather than the unification of a larger state, essentially. But there were some very serious issues with this. By having such a loose and decentralized government, for example, the federal government could not levy attacks or regulate interstate commerce. And, you know, that seems like it might be nice. But when a government can't even get money to run things, it's really kind of stuck. You can't do much of anything at that point. And each state functionally had an independent and sort of competing outlook on trade, monetary policy, and land claims. And so essentially, what we have during the Articles of Confederation is a union of disunion. The only interstate dispute that would be effectively settled by the federal government, during this time period, was a conflict known as the Pennamite-Yankee war. This was a conflict between the states of Connecticut and Pennsylvania in the Wyoming Valley up in what is today, northern Pennsylvania. After, I think the conflict began, roughly in the 1760s. And it continued all the way up into the mid 1780s. This conflict was essentially a dispute over which state legally had the right to land development the region. Um, and people died. There had been a series of small scrimmages, obviously nothing on a mjor scale, but a handful of people did die over these land disputes between what should be two unified states. And so I think, during the 1780s, this sort of major flashpoint sort of conflict of the Pennamite-Yankee war had sort of settled down, however, there was still a serious legal dispute over which state had the right to the land. And so, under the Articles of Confederation, it was eventually determined and ruled on the side of Pennsylvania. But in the span of 10 years, from 1777 to 1787. This would be the only conflict between the states that will be settled by the federal government, which is not a good track record if you ask me. Another thing to consider about the Articles of Confederation is there was only one established branch of the federal government and that was the new Congress. There was no executive branch to carry out the laws passed by Congress. And there was no judicial branch to make legal rulings regarding the unified legal system of the states. And so, with this to this unified American government, many states were not economically doing well, there was no cohesion. And many states sort of started to kind of overreach their powers. And so as a result, there was a looming fear of rebellion from farmers at the time, most notably, Shays' Rebellion in the summer of 1786 in Western Massachusetts. However, the multiple farmers sort of and rural peasant rebellions in many of the especially northern states. In 1780, the state legislature of Massachusetts, raised the property requirements to run and hold political office and refused to issue paper money to help give grant debt relief to farmers to pay off creditors. And so the farmers of Western Massachusetts began to sort of become agitated. And by the summer of 1786, farmers organized in opposition to the state government, a convention was held, sort of to convene and decide what the rural populace of the state should do in order to address the grievances that they had with the state government.And while the convention was sort of meant to sort of be a moderate sort of avenue of compromising discussion, radical sentiment quickly spread, with one man named plow jogger saying, quote,

Plough Jogger 11:11
The great men are going to get all we have and I think it is time for us to rise and put a stop to it and have no more courts, nor sheriffs, nor collectors nor lawyers.

President Shrimpo 12:20
So who was the Shay in Shays' Rebellion? That was Daniel Shays. He was a poor, a poor farmhand, a debtor and a veteran of the revolution, who organized a march of just disgruntled people towards the state capitol. He even garnered some support from local militia men at the time. But this scared the state government. Samuel Adams would draft a riot act and suspend habeas corpus with militias clashing with the martyrs. The army, who was eventually raised to fight the rebellion, was funded primarily by Boston merchants, fearful of what a popular uprising would mean for their position, with many hanged for treason against the Republic. But I do want to go back and point out how interesting it is that the state government of Massachusetts, and the federal government did not organize the militia to put down the uprising. Instead, it was a privately funded operation by merchants. And I think that points to something but but I do want to move on briefly. Before we touch back on that. Rhode Island, sought debtors, completely seized the state legislature and begin printing money. And several hundred men surrounded the New Hampshire state legislature, demanding taxes be returned to those who had paid them and for paper money to be issued. They were only dispersed when threatened with military action, such as that had been done during Shay's Rebellion. But what this points to is a larger, popular movement potentially rising up against the state governments as they existed under the Articles of Confederation. And so with these fears, of a popular uprising occurring against the new political structures that existed in this New Republic, a growing consensus came about that a new constitution had to be drafted in order for order to be preserved in American society. And so, we now move on to 1787. The year that we drafted our current constitution that we have today, but we need to understand who were the people who drafted this new constitution. Of the 55 men who drafted the Constitution in 1787, the vast majority were lawyers, wealthy landowners, and had financial interests in the new government at large. So these included merchants. These included landholders. These included, essentially the sort of top crust of American society. Almost all of these groups had a direct interest in a stronger federal government, that could intervene on their behalf. Northern manufacturers needed a stronger protective tariff that would increase the price of foreign industrial goods, such from the United Kingdom, or France, or the Netherlands, which had a more robust manufacturing base. Land speculators, who developed land out in the rural reaches of the western part of the country, wanted protection from the federal government as they seized native land. And southern slave owners wanted protection from slave revolts. And they wanted protection from quote, property loss. Which is a horrifying thing to say but that's how they viewed holding thousands of people in captivity at the time. This was not necessarily a conscious protection of their own interests at the time. Rather, they felt that they were representing citizens who fully participated in government. And it just so happened, that the only people who fully participated in government at the time were the wealthy elite. So landowners, debt collectors, land speculators, manufacturers, these were considered to be citizens. And those who didn't not fit the the parameters, simply just were not truly considered. This, of course, is not to say this is representative of everybody at the Constitution at the Constitutional Convention, many wealthy landowners still oppose the new constitution, despite standing to gain from it. And I think this was not necessarily a coherent, logical position. I don't think, I don't think most people at the Constitutional Convention were really consciously thinking about how much they would gain from this, or how much they could stand to lose by not adopting this. But those who opposed this new central, federal government sort of had a fundamental sort of ideological dissonance. So many of them had been preaching against this sort of large, powerful state during the revolution. And so I think, quite a few of them simply kind of got high on their own supply. They truly believed what they had been saying and they stuck to it, despite how much it could hurt them to not adopt a stronger federal government. In fact, even Thomas Jefferson, who was the exact kind of property owner, who these farmer rebellions were sort of directed against, spoke favorably on popular revolutions. At the time, he said, quote,

Thomas Jefferson 18:15
I hold it that a little rebellion known then as a good thing, it is a medicine necessary for the Sound Health of government. God forbid that we should ever be 20 years without such a rebellion. The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.

President Shrimpo 18:33
Now, it's important to note that it was easy for Jefferson to say this at the time as he was far away from the violence that was going on while he was off in France. So he sort of kept ideological blinders that prevented him from seeing how much danger he and many others were in at the time. So while Jefferson may have had these sort of strong, ideological, revolutionary positions, many of the landowners who, at one time, agreed with many of his positions, were not so cheerful and not quite so hopeful of what revolutions would mean for their positions. And many feared what that would mean for their entrenched political power. So with this in mind, we need to essentially understand that the political, political elite of the time feared would a popular uprising on a large scale would mean. This essentially was sort of the backdrop of the clamor for a more centralized federal government in the new constitution and the presidency. Alexander Hamilton said, quote,

Alexander Hamilton 19:46
All communities divide themselves into the few in the many. The first, are the rich and well born and the other the mass of the people. The people are turbulent and changing. They seldom judge or determine right. Nothing but a permanent body can check the imprudence of democracy.

President Shrimpo 20:02
Essentially, this new constitution was not rooted in democratic sentiments necessarily. Rather, it was rooted in a desire to maintain and hold on to property. This is not to say that that was the only influence, as I've already stated, but that was sort of the driving engine that led to the centralization and strengthening of the federal government at the time. The only federal level office was democratically elected directly was the House of Representatives, in which states would be granted congressional districts based on the population size. However, the Senate was not democratically elected at the time, with senators being appointed by state legislatures. And the presidency being indirectly elected through the electoral college. But what is the Electoral College? It's something that we still have today, and it causes many issues, even in our modern elections but it's something that has existed since the beginning of our presidential elections. It's a convoluted system, it's something that not many countries have a good analog for. Essentially, it is a college of electors, which is silly to say, but each state is appointed electors based on their congressional seats. So every state is granted a minimum of two based on their two Senate seats, and then additional electors based on the number of House seats that they have. Say, so, for example today, the state of Wyoming only has three electors, as they have two senators and then only one house representative. But states like New York has many, many times more, because they have so many more seats in the House of Representatives. But the electoral college today is different than what it was back in 1787. Electors would either be elected by the state government, which was most common at the time, or would be democratically elected. However, voters would not be voting for the presidential candidate that they preferred. Rather, they would be directly voting for the electors whom they then entrusted to elect the best president. Another thing to note, the president and vice president were not voted together on the same ticket. Rather, each elector was granted the ability to cast two electoral votes. And then the highest winning candidate would be elected president, and the candidate that came in second will be elected vice president. So I guess this sort of raises the question of why have a president at all. The president is not a king. It's a shorter term. It doesn't, it's not granted by the right of God. But it's also much stronger than anything that existed under the Articles of Confederation. I think we can best understand the presidency as an avatar representing the combined forces of this new centralized federal government. So rather than Congress standing alone in organizing and operating the levers of power, a president could execute the will of the legislature, and by extension, the interests of the wealthy, which that legislature represented. The President is chosen to create sort of a national consensus, a grand coalition of the vast different wealthy interests in the country. And no president could ever be elected without a majority of the support of the electors. Note that I don't say without a majority of the popular vote, that was never even considered at the time. Rather, the drafters of the Constitution at the time had the mindset, oftentimes, similar to Alexander Hamilton, the idea that popular democratic will, could be wrong. And so the idea was that by entrusting the election of the President, to a assembled cabinet of, or, an assembled College of those most competent, at least presumed to be the most competent, only then could a truly legitimate president be elected. So foundationally, this was not a democratic institution by any means. And when our government is, has a built-in anti-democratic bent, you have to wonder, how can that government ever fully alleviate the inequalities when it is foundational to the very structures and levers of power within government? Rather than the Founding Fathers being a wise elite drafting our Constitution, which is perfect in every form, it's best understood as a process of local elites vying for control on the national level. Those within government who opposed this new centralized federal government in the new American Constitution, did not base their opposition to federalism on a genuine level in which they understood materially how this could impact the common people of America. Rather, it was a movement of sort of heady intellectualism, in which they saw ideological blinders that sort of prevented them from embracing things, even when they materially stood to gain. So with all of this in mind, how is this new government received by the average person? The answer, simply, positively, the average person was, may have been suspicious of the new powerful federal government, following the excesses of state governments under the Articles of Confederation. But with the creation of the Bill of Rights, many people's spheres were soothed, especially those who were anti-Federalists. The new constitution, essentially polished this oligarchic system to seem more equitable, and more free for the average citizen. Even when they were not fully represented by the government, with the expansion of freedom of speech, freedom of religion, property protection, fair trials, rights to self defense, etc. The average American truly could believe that they were better off and more free after the revolution. And also, something that needs to just be considered is that oftentimes people don't think of politics on an ideological level, in which they are seriously concerned about who runs what. People just wanted stability. People wanted a sense of safety, and that was something that many Americans had not felt since the Revolution began in 1776. And so with that, we enter the new era of the American presidency. Next time on In the West Wing, we will be taking a look at the life and times of America's first president, George Washington. The intro music used on in the West Wing, the Star Spangled Banner by the United States Marine Band, and Libertad by Iriarte and Pesoa.

Transcribed by https://otter.ai