Declaration Of Independence Analysis

Not to Be Dispirited In many ways it appears that the Constitution of the United States was meant to abnegate the spirit of the Declaration of Independence. However, if one follows the history of our nation’s founding from the first colony to the ratification of the Constitution it is possible to see that the new form of government prescribed therein serves to protect the human rights that were proclaimed as the rights of all men in the Declaration. Recognizing permits a view of the Constitution as giving new life to the spirit of revolution. The authors of the Constitution held a view of a union between the states that was free yet orderly, with powers invested in the union distributed in such a way so as to protect the rights of the people.
In order to achieve this balanced union they created a style of government that encapsulated concepts and idea from multiple sources, including the Declaration of Independence. The final document entailed a complex system that gave considerable powers to a national government, to be split between three branches: the Judiciary, the Legislative, and the Executive, while leaving the states with some degree of autonomy.
Though many expressed concerns over a stronger central government as a whole, the greatest controversy was over the form and function what would be the President of the United States. Due to a deep seeded fear of the tyrannical rule of a monarch, the thought of a powerful national government headed by a single magistrate raised the hackles of many an American. In order for the Constitution to pass muster this misunderstanding of the executive had to be addressed.
To understand how a representative democracy embody the spirit of the Declaration of Independence it is helpful to think of the “drafting of the Constitution not as an isolated event but as the last act in the total drama that was the American Revolution.”1 From 1607, when the first colony was formed in Jamestown Massachusetts, to the beginning of the Revolutionary War in 1775, each of the colonies was ruled by a colonial government that tool orders from King George III. In America’s nascent stages they relied heavily on the support of England. As the colonies grew in strength and number, an
economy developed around agricultural exports in the South, exporting staples such wheat, corn and tobacco, and the fishing and manufacturing and shipbuilding industries in the North. This growth in economy gave the colonies the push they needed to become self-sufficient. This growth also meant that British investors finally saw a return in their investments and the relationship between the colonies and the crown began to sour. Over time England’s greed manifested itself in the form of restrictions, tariffs, and mandates set upon the colonies and the goods they produced, thus depriving the colonists of the fruits of their labor. Finally, after 169 years of oppressive colonial rule of the colonies, in an unprecedented united effort, declared war on England. And so, in 1776, following the energy that brought about the Revolutionary War, the Declaration of Independence was born and so with, every citizen’s right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The Declaration received mass support, not only from the people for whom it was written but also from countries like France, who rallied behind the colonies in the effort to gain independence from England. For many Americans revolution meant liberty and democracy which in 1781, toward the end of the war, led to ratification of the Articles of Confederations, creating the official Confederation of the 13 sovereign states. The Articles, in accordance with the people’s conception of liberty and democracy, gave the Continental Congress enough power to maintain the war and create diplomatic ties with key European countries, while leaving governing power solely in the states. This situation held during the war but quickly deteriorated afterward. As time went on the individual states struggled more and more under the weight of financial crisis, conflicts with neighboring states, and civil unrest that led to violent outbursts amongst the population. Some states tried printing paper money to alleviate the burdens of high taxes and massive debt, but only managed to depreciate the value of the money, causing inflation and increased poverty. States that had harbors butted heads with those states without harbors over taxes on imports. Then came Shays’s Rebellion in March of 1786, a massive protest against the state of affairs in Massachusetts that caused many to seriously question the stability of the Confederation. It was apparent that the government as it was no longer possessed the means to maintain order and was at risk of collapse. In his introduction to the Federalist Papers Isaac Kramnick quotes an unnamed American minister as saying “power abused ceases to be lawful authority and degenerates into tyranny. Liberty abused, or carried to excess, is licentiousness.”2 And so, under the guise of amending the Articles of Confederation, 55 delegates from 7 states met in Philadelphia to begin the arduous task of creating a more stable government. The intent of these men was not to negate the Declaration of Independence, but to address what Martin Diamond calls the “fundamental errors”3 made by the Founding Fathers. From May 14 to September 17 of 1787, the delegates grappled over the details of the new government.
Drawing from the many resources provided by James Madison and much debate, they established a template for a Representative Democracy consisting of three branches. Though there were qualms over the Judiciary and the Legislative branches, especially regarding how the spread of legislative power would be handled, the largest point of contention was over the design and power of the Executive branch. As many still bore the unpleasant memories of colonial rule, and of King George III, the Constitution’s energetic executive emerged as one of its greatest obstacles to ratification. It was Alexander Hamilton’s arguments in Federalist 69 and 70 that most adequately resolved the issues surrounding the President of the United States. In Federalist 69 Hamilton made clear the distinctions and contrasts between the President and a despotic monarch. One distinction he made lies in the concept of terms. The President of the United States “is to be elected for four year terms, and is to be re-eligible as often as the people of the United States shall think him worthy of their confidence.”4 In contrast, a monarch gains power by virtue of heredity and is afforded lifetime tenure. Hamilton argued that leaving the President’s position in the hands of the electorate would reduce the chance of corruption. Another contrast lies in the ability to remove the President from office, through a
prescribed process, something that could not be done to with a monarch, as “the person of the king of Great Britain is sacred and inviolable. ”5 The idea here being the threat of expulsion for offenses against the union would incentivize the President to keep the interests of the people in mind. Hamilton makes many such contrasts, from the provision giving the President command of military forces, to the Presidential power of granting pardons. In each case he clearly draws the line between the President of the United States and the monarch of Britain.
In Federalist 70 Hamilton begins with the assumption that all men understand that “[a] feeble executive implies a feeble execution of the government [and a] feeble execution of government [is synonymous with] a bad government.”6 It is for this reason that he focuses on the importance of a single executive. He asserts that the instatement a board of executives or to combine this office with the legislative branch would lead to differences in opinion, and thus to the weakness of the President. The idea of unity, or oneness is key to the function of the President. He states that “[d]ecision, activity, secrecy, and dispatch will generally characterize the proceedings of one man in a much more eminent degree than the proceedings of any greater number.”6 If one is to accept the arguments put forth in Federalist 69, trusting in the checks that the Constitution puts in place to prevent the corruption of the office, then the idea of entrusting a single magistrate to wield that power of the office is but the next step.
The American Revolution was a hard fought battle in many ways. It was a war fought on the field, where men risked their lives for the sake of liberation from the tyranny of British Colonial rule, and back at the homestead, where the minds of great men were pushed to their limits to meet the challenge of creating the legal foundation on which those soldiers could rely once they returned home. The changes proposed in the Constitution seemed a radical departure from the Articles of the Confederation, and certainly form the Declaration of Independence. It’s no wonder that there exists a perception of the Constitution as an attempt by the Framers to quell the spirit of revolution that prevailed in 1776. But, given deeper consideration, the path that history draws from the Declaration of Independence to the Constitution becomes clearer, along which the signs of revolution can be found at every bend.

Works Cited
1. Hamilton, A., Jay, J., Madison, J., & Kramnick, I. (1987). The Federalist Papers. New York, NY: Penguin
2. Roche, J.P., (1961). The Founding Fathers: A Reform Caucus In Action. The American Political Science Review, 55(4). Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/1952528?uid=3739832&uid=2134&uid=374469061&uid=2&uid=70&uid=3&uid=374469051&uid=3739256&uid=60&sid=21102688333941
3. Diamond, M., (1959). Democracy and the Federalist: A reconsideration of the Framers Intent. The American Political Science Review, 53(1), 52-68. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/1951730?uid=3739832&uid=2134&uid=374469061&uid=2&uid=70&uid=3&uid=374469051&uid=3739256&uid=60&sid=21102688333941
4. Hamilton, A., Jay, J., Madison, J., & Kramnick, I. (1987). The Federalist Papers. New York, NY: Penguin
5. Hamilton, A., Jay, J., Madison, J., & Kramnick, I. (1987). The Federalist Papers. New York, NY: Penguin
6. Hamilton, A., Jay, J., Madison, J., & Kramnick, I. (1987). The Federalist Papers. New York, NY: Penguin