Pratt 1 Virginia Pratt Professor Stephen Tilson History 2700 27 February 2014

The motives behind United States Constitution were and always will be the basis of debate. This ongoing Constitutional debate is proven true by the excerpts of speeches and writings in chapter 15 of the book Changing Interpretations of America's Past. It is my own opinion that the Constitution is a well-written document constructed by ordinary men to give guidelines to a new type of country and government. What their personal and collective motives were is up to interpretation by the same type of ordinary diverse people as the ones who wrote and ratified it. Different time periods, beliefs and backgrounds assist the many debaters to form their opinions of the Constitution itself and the motives behind its foundation. At the time of its ratification, the major debate was whether or not the Constitution would help preserve the new freedom the new country was enjoying or was it a way to slowly bring back the tyrannical government they just fought so hard to abolish. The men of the time had fought hard and put their own lives and the lives of their families on the line to gain the freedom they now enjoyed. So it is not surprising that men such as Patrick Henry said, "This Constitution is said to have beautiful features; but when I come to examine these features, Sir, they appear to me horridly frightful: Among other deformities, it has an awful squinting; it squints towards monarchy." (Source 9, pg 166) Where as, John Marshall stated, "I am sure that those who framed

Pratt 2

the system submitted to our investigation and those who now support it...claim the title of being firm friends of the liberty and security of mankind." (Source 11, pg 166-167) Both of these men were speaking at the Virginia convention in June of 1788 and both had solid points about their reason to be for or against the Constitution. Several years later, the well-known abolitionist, William Lloyd Garrison berated the ratification of the Constitution as, "...an unblushing and monstrous coalition to do evil that good might come..." and "...a flagrant robbery of all the inalienable rights of man..." (Source 12, pg 169) His belief of this comes from his belief of the evils of the practice of slavery that was not abolished during this time period and rightfully should have been. However, it is Benjamin Franklin who gives the most insightful and accurate opinion for the reason to ratify the Constitution when he said, "Mr. President: I confess that there are several parts of this constitution which I do not at present approve, but I am not sure I shall ever approve...For when you assemble with those men all their prejudices, their passion, their errors of opinion, their local interests, and their selfish views. From such an assembly can a perfect production be expected? It therefore astonishes me, Sir, to find this system approaching so near to perfection as it does;" (Source 1, pg 162-163) Most of the men who ratified and debated the Constitution knew it was not a perfect contract but they also knew something had to be done. They knew their actions would be debated extensively throughout time, but they felt the Constitution was the best solution they had for saving their new county. They were ordinary men doing the best they could with the resources they had available. It is easy for people to look at the past and pass judgment on what should have happened, what could have happened and the reasons and motives for both. However, the only enduring

Pratt 3

fact is that the diversity of the human race causes everyone in every age to agree to disagree about everything because we all have differing beliefs and backgrounds that help us form our opinions of what is right and wrong and the motives behind them. The Constitution's ratification is one of those enduring debates with no solid solution.