“If Men Were Angels…No Constitution Would Be Necessary?”

AHTC SUMMER INSTITUTE 2008- The Constitutional Convention

Izona J. Burgess, Stratton Elementary School, Champaign, Illinois

“…If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions…” Taken from Federalist Paper No. 51 by James Madison

This quote, shared by Robert Leming from the Center for Civic Education, had a profound effect on me at Tuesday afternoon’s session of the Summer Institute, and both validated and confirmed my reactions to speakers and materials received throughout our five days of “intellectual rigor”, a term shared by historian and Tuesday morning keynote speaker, David Stewart (Summer of 1787) earlier in the day. Federalist Paper No. 51, written by James Madison, was part of a series of 85 essays written by James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and John Jay outlining why each of the different elements of the Constitution should be supported and ratified by the states. Upon seeing it, my thoughts immediately turned to the words of the writer, Jeremiah, in the 10^th chapter and the 17^th verse of our oldest history text, the Bible, which paraphrased says that “the heart of man is treacherous…who can know it?” It seems that the framers of the Constitution knew from our oldest written law code—the Bible—that government must be based upon a realistic view of human nature. The founders knew from the Bible that humans are “made in God’s image” and have the ability to be virtuous, yet at the same time they would know and experience that humans are also “sinful” and have the ability to be depraved and evil. Thomas Jefferson exaggeratingly likened these men to “demigods,’ and Carol Berkin, Wednesday morning’s keynote speaker, says in her book, A Brilliant Solution that “it would be comforting to think that the men who created (the) constitution believed confidently that they were designing a government for the ages (and) many historians have told the story in just this comforting way.” David O. Stewart, Tuesday morning keynote speaker and author, The Summer of 1787, said in his keynote that these men didn’t view the Constitution as the “holy grail” and many of them would be surprised to learn that the document has lasted for over 200 years and is still being consulted, today, to decide “laws.” In fact, Stewart questioned why do we (Americans) “deify” our Founding Fathers? Historian Ray Raphael in his book, Founding Myths: Stories that Hide Our Patriotic Past, and quoting from Gordon Wood, Monday keynote speaker, that “until recently few Americans could look back at these revolutionaries and constitution-makers without being overawed by the brilliance of their thought, the creativity of their politics, the sheer magnitude of their achievement. They used to seem larger than life, giants in the earth, possessing intellectual and political capacities well beyond our own.” Wood goes on to say that “the American revolutionaries and the framers of the Constitution are no longer being celebrated in the way they used to be.” After this summer institute, I would have to strongly concur. Although for many of us, this “view” of the Constitutional Convention was not one that is readily available in our history texts, Madison’s words from Federalist Paper No. 51 shows that he understood 220 years ago what many historians are just beginning to understand today, and that is that our founders were “human and imperfect; each had his flaws and failing,” (David McCullough-July 4, 2002, op-ed piece for the New York Times.)

Additional research following the summer institute has helped me to see that Federalist Paper No. 51 is the fourth most researched essay out of the 85. Looking at this document within its context, we know that it was used by the framers of the Constitution to rally support for its ratification. Today, we would call that “spin.” Newspapers were the spin masters of Madison’s day, and this essay would be published under the heading, “The Structure of the Government Must Furnish the Proper Checks and Balances between the Different Departments.” This whole notion of “checks and balances” both liberates (human dignity) and at the same time controls (human sin and depravity). The Founding Fathers recognized the need to not only look out for short term goals, but to design a government which would bring about long range goals and has endured much longer than they could ever have imagined. It seems that James Madison reflected on the people’s understanding of human nature to rationalize the great need for a separation of powers and what better source than quoting the Bible. From movie clips of John Adams to Founding Myths by Ray Raphael, there are constant references to the Bible. Raphael says in his book that “on the first anniversary of independence in 1777, when William Gordon delivered the oration for the festivities in Boston, he used as his text the Old Testament.” He also noted that, “surprisingly, the Declaration of Independence was not often cited during the drafting of the U.S. Constitution in 1787 or in the subsequent debates over ratification (and) notes from the Constitutional Convention make only two references to the Declaration, while essays in The Federalist Papers contain but one.” I think it would be interesting to find out how many references are made to the Bible, yet ironically the Constitution is often cited as the reason why we cannot teach the Bible to our students. It, too, has become a text that is often misconstrued, like the Constitution, to represent a particular point of view, or is not referenced at all. It is hard not to view this document from a religious perspective. In it, Madison mentions a special characteristic of the judiciary branch. He says that, “…it might be inexpedient to insist rigorously on the principle of (separate electoral channels for each branch): first, because peculiar qualifications being essential in the members, the primary consideration ought to be to select that mode of choice which best secures these qualifications….” According to historical scholars, Madison is saying that the principle of selection is not the faithful representation of the people, but rather the moral and intellectual qualities of judges. These scholars go on to say that Madison makes it clear that “institutional arrangements for the limitation of powers no matter how necessary for free government, cannot ultimately provide the wisdom and courage needed for good government.” This makes the Supreme Court special, and is the only one not subject to “checks and balances,” and it has the crucial function of interpreting the Constitution. It is their job to regard the Constitution as fundamental law and interpret its meanings, yet how do we determine whether they are moral or wise? Even, today, the Federalists Papers are often used by the Supreme Court to interpret law, and a quick check on the internet can cite the most recent cases.

What did I get out of all of this, and why am I so fascinated with Federalist Paper No. 51 and how would I use it? This paper seems to speak to the “heart” of the matter and is the central reason why we both need, and at times abhor our government. Humans cannot govern themselves because of their very nature, yet how do we create a government that balances our need for freedom, and at the same time protects the rights of others? This summer institute has helped to humanize our Founding Fathers. As historian Ray Raphael says in Founding Myths: Stories That Hide Our Patriotic Past, “they have become Founder Chic—America’s ‘greatest generation’, despite their human quirks, or, more precisely, because of them.” It is because of their flaws and their understanding of human nature through the oldest living history text, the Bible, as well as experience that they could write such a document that would endure. Despite progress, man’s basic nature has not changed. For many, the constitution has created an almost over involvement in human lives by our government, yet it seems that in times of crisis, the most complicated problems are solved by man’s humanity to man—people basing their actions on their moral code—usually found in the Bible—a history text largely relied on by our founding fathers, yet according to today’s interpretation of our Constitution, cannot be used in our public schools. We can look back on history and see other examples where men acted, not on the basis of the Constitution, but on the basis of higher code. I would use this document as a prelude to studying the basis for the law code found in the Constitution. Although I think that this document would be above the level of the upper elementary students that I work with, I could probably use part of it as motivation for learning more about James Madison, often called the “father of the Constitution,” and what in his background would enable him to be so insightful about human behavior. I would then hope that I could interest my students in learning a bit more about the other 54 men who began that process in the summer of 1787 with the goal of giving them a balanced view of not only the framers of the Constitution, but also how to view the men who govern our lives today. I think that they would never view history in the same way, and guard against this notion of “deifying” humans in any endeavor.

A Recommended Website for teachers by historian Ray Raphael, Founding Myths: Stories That Hide Our Patriotic Past, is a series of lesson plans written by teachers through the Teaching American History grant at http://www.nohum.k12.ca.us/nhuhsd/nhuhsd.htm. Look for the link to the “Teaching American History” website. There are lesson plans for 5^th through 12^th grade based on every chapter in the book. You can also find this information in the back of his book which we received at the Summer Institute.