Unruly Americans and the Origins of the Constitution by Woody Holton; A Short Review

 Holton, Woody. Unruly Americans and the Origins of the Constitution. New York: Hill and Wang, 2007.

Many Americans look to the framing of the Constitution with great sentimentality believing that the wisdom of the Framers inaugurated a democracy and their rights as American citizens. Yet, Woody Holton in his book, Unruly Americans and the Origins of the Constitution argues that the goal of the Framers was not to unleash democracy and establish American rights but rather the men, who designed the Constitution sought to strengthen the federal government and shield it against grassroots democratic pressure. Many popular accounts of the Constitutional Convention declare that the Framers’ primary motivation was to address the problems caused by a weak Articles of Confederation. But Holton points to the Framers’ own statements which reveal that James Madison and other Convention delegates were far more concerned about the problems caused by state governments. The Constitution was an effort to safeguard against the dangers of democracy, transfer power from the state governments, and place power within a stronger Federal government. The Framers never viewed the idea of safeguarding civil liberties as the motivation for the Constitution.

 Many delegates expressed concern that state legislatures gave “too great an attention to popular notions.” (5) The Framers simply believed that the American Revolution had run astray and that the Convention needed to “put the democratic genie back into the bottle.” (5) Holton further contends that the attempt by the Framers to tamp down on popular pressure left Americans with “nagging feelings” that disaster awaits “when ordinary folk get their hands on the levers of power.” (273) Only the need for approval by the states prevented the framers from making the Constitution even more anti-democratic, as “their desperate desire to get the Constitution through the ratifying conventions had forced them to drop or moderate some of their favorite restraints on grassroots influence.” (198)

The period after the American victory witnessed economic struggle as crippling debt owed to bondholders and creditors by the states forced taxes upon citizens. Every state witnessed rebellions where distressed farmers rebelled against state taxation and harsh attempts at debt collection. The Shay’s Rebellion, especially caused many elite Americans to see a need for a stronger and less democratic national government to rein in the rebellion and the failure of state governments to deal with debt collection. For many of the Framers, the state legislators were far too lax and ready to provide relief because of the popular pressure placed upon the state by the electorate. One might believe that Holton follows a similar thesis to Charles Beard in his book Economic Interpretation of the Constitutionof the United States, who argued that the goal of the Framers was to protect their own investments against the needs of small farmers and laborers. According to Beard, without a stronger Federal government, creditors would not get their money. (22) But Holton, argues that two of the primary authors of the Constitution, Madison and Hamilton, neither owned bonds nor were they major creditors. Economic recovery was a primary concern for the Framers, who believed that lax treatment of debtors and taxes eventually led to a worsening economy with the loss of credit and ability to trade.

While the Framers arrived in Philadelphia critical of state governments, one might assume that the farmers and Anti-Federalists gave their support to their legislators. The reality was the Anti-Federalists and especially the farmers were highly critical of the state governments for not doing enough to provide relief to those suffering under oppressive taxes. Holton presents Herman Husband as a voice for those demanding relief from taxes and debt. While the framers believed that the farmers suffered because of their own irresponsibility, Holton demonstrates that the reality was that many bondholders held bonds purchased from soldiers and farmers. Abagail Adams serves Holton as an example of someone discovering that trading in bonds brought easier profits than land speculation.

Herman Hisband, NC Historical Highway Markers

While today most Americans prize the Constitution for the civil rights protection found in the Bill of Rights, Holton demonstrates that most of the Framers had no plans for a Bill of Rights but only conceded to win support for the ratification by the states. Several state conventions promised support for the Constitution only if amendments protecting civil rights were added. Anti-Federalists also pressured the Framers into promising protection for civil rights. The Bill of Rights became part of the Constitution only because without the first ten amendments then state approval was highly doubtful. Without opposition to the Constitution then a Bill of Rights would be nonexistent. (xi)  

Holton offers an engaging interpretation of the opposing motivations behind the origins of the Constitution, although his account is often repetitive with many explanations repeating themselves through each chapter. And while Holton promises multiple views outside of the Framers, it appears that much of his work still centers on James Madison and other Framers with some highlighting of Herman Husband. Most of the farmers and others engaged in rebellious actions during the 1780s still appear to have a smaller voice, especially after the adoption of the Constitution. Once the Convention begins, farmers rarely appear.