Character versus Constitution

(For Politics 213)

In the months following the Constitutional Convention, a fierce debate swept across the country, over the precise nature of the problems besetting the fractured Union. The Federalists, who supported ratifying the Constitution, argued that solving American political difficulties mainly consisted in creating the proper legal framework: in this view, the Constitution is a complex machine, driven by individual self-interest, which receives human nature, and produces liberty on the other end. Conversely, the Anti-Federalists argued that American political stability rested primarily in the virtue of its citizens. The Federalists saw the greatest hope for peace in a system of checks and balances that would prevent tyranny at any level; the Antis- countered with a vision of an nation full of citizens who loved liberty, and also loved their neighbors.

Ultimately, the Anti-Federalists had the weaker argument, and so lost the debate. They placed more confidence in men, individually and collectively, than prudence merited. However, the true legacy of American political life lies in the tension between these two arguments. In the 85 years following the Constitution's ratification, America showed a distinct love for complex legislative solutions to its great national challenge: slavery. The Missouri Compromise, the Compromise Tariff Act, the Compromise of 1850 were nothing more than elaborate chains to restrain the beast that raged within America. For eight decades, legislators devoted all their energy to the minutest details of the law, never bothering to question whether two groups divided by such a yawning moral chasm could agree to disagree indefinitely.

Perhaps men must always learn important lessons through painful experience: it took a Civil War to awaken America to the reality that the moral content of its citizens played a crucial role in the application of its laws. The War was never fundamentally about states' rights, or even about the Constitutional allowance of slavery: 500,000 men bled and died to decide whether America would become a nation of slaveowners, or a nation of free men.

While the Civil War showcased the need for attention to citizen-virtue, the war itself ended in still more legislative compromise. That was why the 14th Amendment, victory though it was, did not truly mark a period of equality and prosperity for blacks. Indeed, the nadir of racism and oppression really came during the 1920's--blacks only began to make true strides within society once the Civil Rights movement shook the racist culture of America to its core. The effects of Constitutional change can only come with significant cultural change: the character of the citizenry upholds the Constitution.

The history of racism and civil strife sheds light on the moral dilemmas racking the country today. In many areas, we have never abandoned the notion that politics is a purely technical matter, operating independently of the culture in which it resides.

Can anti-poverty legislation help a population increasingly bound to an ethic of entitlement and sloth? Will any amount of pro-life legislation end the murder of babies in a society increasingly indifferent to human life? Will any amount of Social Security ensure the welfare of the elderly in a society that increasingly scorns family solidarity? Will any amount of military spending secure American liberty, if Americans themselves are callous towards liberty (cf. either the Patriot Act, or Abu-Ghraib)?

More than ever, we need to listen to the losers from our history: if nothing else, perhaps we could take away some measure of humility.