The fight against Tranny
In May of 1787 they began to drift into Philadelphia, 55 individuals all responding to the call for a Constitutional Convention. Most were wealthy, all were white, all were male. They came from eleven of the rather disunited states stretched along the eastern seaboard. New Hampshire delegates would not show up until July. Rhode Island would not show up at all.
The problem facing this remarkable group of men was that the existing constitution, the Articles of Confederation, just wasn’t working. Under the Articles there was no chief executive, there was no court system, there was not even a way for the central government to force a state to pay taxes. A new constitution, creating a stronger central government, was necessary if the new nation was to hold together.
The decision to go forward with a new constitution presented a special challenge. Was it possible to frame a government that was strong enough to serve the needs of the new nation and yet which did not create any kind of tyranny? Just four years earlier, the thirteen states had concluded a long revolutionary war to rid themselves of control by a king. Could they create a government that was tyranny-free?
Tyranny is most often defined as harsh, absolute power in the hands of one individual - like a king or a dictator. Thus the colonists called King George ill a tyrant. However, in this Mini-Q we will use a broader definition of tyranny, one provided by James Madison. In his support of the Constitution, Madison wrote as follows:
The accumulation of all powers ... in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many (is) the very definition of tyranny. – Federalist Paper #47
What Madison was saying is that there are many kinds of tyranny. You can have a tyranny of one supreme ruler who takes all power for himself or herself. You can also have a tyranny of a few (when several generals or religious leaders seize control). You can even have tyranny by the many, as when the majority denies rights to a minority.
The problem facing this remarkable group of men was that the existing constitution, the Articles of Confederation, just wasn’t working. Under the Articles there was no chief executive, there was no court system, there was not even a way for the central government to force a state to pay taxes. A new constitution, creating a stronger central government, was necessary if the new nation was to hold together.
The decision to go forward with a new constitution presented a special challenge. Was it possible to frame a government that was strong enough to serve the needs of the new nation and yet which did not create any kind of tyranny? Just four years earlier, the thirteen states had concluded a long revolutionary war to rid themselves of control by a king. Could they create a government that was tyranny-free?
Tyranny is most often defined as harsh, absolute power in the hands of one individual - like a king or a dictator. Thus the colonists called King George ill a tyrant. However, in this Mini-Q we will use a broader definition of tyranny, one provided by James Madison. In his support of the Constitution, Madison wrote as follows:
The accumulation of all powers ... in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many (is) the very definition of tyranny. – Federalist Paper #47
What Madison was saying is that there are many kinds of tyranny. You can have a tyranny of one supreme ruler who takes all power for himself or herself. You can also have a tyranny of a few (when several generals or religious leaders seize control). You can even have tyranny by the many, as when the majority denies rights to a minority.