Understanding the Constitution #13: The Framers Expected an Imperfect Union

“Miracle at Philadelphia,” “A Brilliant Solution,” “Genius of the People” – books about the creation of the Constitution convey the impression it was a divinely inspired, perfect achievement.  Those who crafted it knew better.  In the words of the Preamble, the focus at the Federal Convention in 1787 was to create “a more perfect Union” among the states.  No one thought a perfect one was reachable. 

That need was critical.  The existing government under the Articles of Confederation had led to domestic turmoil and international weakness.  Sovereign states were enacting tariffs against each other and fashioning their own currencies yet were individually defenseless against England, France and Spain, whose North American territories surrounded the fledgling United States.

The Constitution’s framers knew they were not going to solve all the problems that brought them together.  Indeed, they negotiated around huge disagreements between the 12 states that met in Philadelphia (Rhode Island refused even to attend), especially on such issues as slavery and political representation in the national government.  Benjamin Franklin noted this on September 17th, the last day of the convention.  At 81, he pleaded with the delegates to adopt the Constitution unanimously though acknowledging “I confess that there are several parts of this constitution which I do not at present approve . . .”

Franklin, a political realist, understood that crafting a perfect Constitution was impossible:

“For when you assemble a number of men to have the advantage of their joint wisdom, you inevitably assemble with those men, all their prejudices, their passions, their errors of opinion, their local interests, and their selfish views. From such an assembly can a perfect production be expected?”

The imperfections led three delegates that day to refuse their signatures. Others left earlier because they disapproved.  Franklin worried whether this imperfect construction could survive.  Asked by a woman what the delegates had produced, he is said to have replied: “A republic, if you can keep it.”

Yet the beauty of the Constitution is that the nation will always have to struggle to be “more perfect.”  Though enshrined under glass at the National Archives, it is meant to be a perpetual work in progress. That work is the responsibility of every generation.  The Preamble’s opening words, “We, the People” make this clear.   “We” was not just the delegates in Philadelphia; it is every American then and since. 

A special advantage is the Constitution’s brevity. In 1787, it was just over 4,000 words, about half the length of a nonfiction book chapter.  Most constitutions are much longer (the French Constitution is over 15,000 words).  Rather than addressing every issue, the Constitution creates a mechanism to govern, leaving the details to those who use it – and thus to future generations. 

Indeed, Article V’s amendment process admits the union is not perfect. It acknowledges flaws can be corrected - and that even those corrections can be corrected, as happened when the 21st Amendment revoked the 18th which had prohibited the manufacture and sale of alcohol.

Still, the framers did not encourage ill-considered or extra-constitutional changes. Prudence is the principle. In his 1796 Farewell Address, Washington cautioned:

“If, in the opinion of the people, the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation . . .”

More than 11,000 amendments have been proposed; just 27 have been ratified (roughly one third of one percent).  Only 16 were ratified after 1800.  This testifies to the work of the convention and the care taken since.  Indeed, the changes have made the union “more perfect.”  - a Bill of Rights, abolishing slavery, and extending the franchise are just the most noteworthy examples. As Martin Luther King, Jr. is once said to have put it: “The Constitution is an amazing document.  It worked exactly for those it was meant to exclude, blacks and women.”

With domestic turmoil in recent years, we hear repeated demands for Constitutional change:  abolishing the Electoral College, restricting campaign financing and altering the Supreme Court are just some of the amendments proposed.  This dialogue can be useful if undertaken with care, an understanding of history and respect for Constitutional values, including the value of differing views and civil dialogue.  Proposals designed only to lock in partisan advantage or that sacrifice justice to political agendas, on the other hand, will make the Constitution less perfect and edge too close to Franklin’s fear about losing our republic.   

Ill-advised tinkering is a perpetual worry. Since the nation was founded with a great fear of standing armies, an early amendment proposed to limit the size of the nation’s army to 5,000 men.  Washington responded that he could support it if European nations agreed to never attack the United States with an army larger than 5,000 men.  That proposed amendment died a needed death.

The Constitution is not perfect.  It never will be.  But making it more perfect is the founders’ challenge to us and our obligation.