Digital Commons @ Assumption University Political Science Department Faculty Works Political Science Department 2014 The Founding Fathers: A Conserving Caucus in Action George W. Carey Georgetown University Greg Weiner Assumption College, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.assumption.edu/political-science-faculty Part of the Political Science Commons Recommended Citation Carey, George W. and Greg Weiner. "The Founding Fathers: A Conserving Caucus in Action." Modern Age vol. 56 no. 1 (Winter 2014): 29-41. https://home.isi.org/founding-fathersbr-conserving-caucus-action. This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Political Science Department at Digital Commons @ Assumption University. It has been accepted for inclusion in Political Science Department Faculty Works by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons @ Assumption University. For more information, please contact [email protected]. ESSAY THE FOUNDING FATHERS a conserving caucus in action George W. Carey and Greg Weiner everal fine and highly readable accounts provides a context for a better understanding Sof the Philadelphia Constitutional Con- of the dynamics of the Convention, how vention have appeared over the decades. differences of interest and theoretical persua- What characterizes most of these works—as sion were reconciled, and why the Constitu- well as, we should add, the countless articles tion took the form it did. Such is the case, dealing with the Convention—is their focus to take the most dramatic example, with the not only on the delegates, their backgrounds well-known account of the “large state, small and views, but also on the conflicts that state controversy” that almost resulted in the arose between them during their delibera- breakdown of the Convention. tions. Perhaps most prominent among these Yet this portrait of the Philadelphia Conven- readings is John Roche’s seminal essay “The tion as a “reform caucus” overlooks the con- Founding Fathers: A Reform Caucus in siderable extent to which the delegates were Action,” which casts delegates to the Con- constrained by, and therefore only relatively vention as politicians rather than as theorists modestly modified, long-established political and emphasizes their employment of com- forms in use in the American colonies and promise to overcome conflict.1 The result, states for decades. This is to say, they showed Roche writes, is that “the careful observer of an inclination to follow John Dickinson’s the day-to-day work of the Convention finds admonition, “Experience must be our only no over-arching principles.” Such principles guide. Reason may mislead us.”2 In this sense, as appear to exist, he suggests, were retro- the Convention was less a reform caucus than spective justifications applied to the products a conserving one. Indeed, while it is undeni- of compromise. This focus is quite under- ably true that the delegates were skilled at standable, if for no other reason than that it the art of compromise, the Convention was George W. Carey (1933–2013), a longtime contributor to Modern Age, was one of the foremost authorities on the political theory of the American Founding. His voluminous writings included Basic Symbols of the American Political Tradition (with Willmoore Kendall), The Federalist: Design for a Constitutional Republic, and In Defense of the Constitution. He taught at Georgetown University for more than fifty years. Greg Weiner is assistant professor of political science at Assumption College in Worcester, Massachusetts, and the author of Madison’s Metronome: The Constitution, Majority Rule, and the Tempo of American Politics. 29 MODERN AGE WINTER 2014 also characterized by a remarkable degree of up to the Revolution, that which Friedrich consensus on fundamental matters of gover- von Gentz identified as a “lack of abstract nance. This consensus reached not merely the theory.”3 On Gentz’s showing, the American republican underpinnings of the regime but Revolution, quite unlike the French, could also several particulars as to its form, such as even be considered reactionary, since the bicameralism and the separation of powers. colonists sought a return to the conditions Roche correctly notes that the framers were that prevailed during the colonial period of not abstract theorists, but they were theo- “salutary neglect.” retically sophisticated. The general absence of We do not mean to suggest that the framers abstract theory in their debates may largely were copycats. Clearly this was not the case. reflect the fact that few fundamental theo- Nor could it be, given the need to address the retical issues were in dispute; on the contrary, delicate issues surrounding federalism and such conflicts as did exist pertained largely to what the role of the states in the structure the best practical means of realizing ideals on and processes of the new government should which the overwhelming proportion of del- be, matters about which the political tradi- egates agreed. The sheer magnitude of the task tion was largely silent. Moreover, they looked before the delegates—that of uniting inde- upon their political institutions and tradition pendent and largely sovereign states under with a critical eye, acknowledging the fail- one government—would probably have been ures and weaknesses of state constitutions. impossible lacking a consensus on the basic In this sense, the prior experiences indicated principles of governance. Moreover, given the what avenues should not be traveled, or they speed with which the Convention completed pointed to potential dangers in some of the its work, this consensus clearly had to embrace institutional or procedural arrangements a number of concrete matters of governance, set before the Convention. Yet, as even this principally those relating to the procedures “negative” role reveals, the political tradition and structures of government necessary for served to establish crucial parameters in the the realization of the basic principles. debates and deliberations of the Convention; Equally important, a major source of this that is, it not only provided the common consensus, we believe, is to be found in the grounds and shared experiences for a mean- American political tradition, starting with ingful exchange of views; it also limited the the principles and practices of government range of potential alternative arrangements stretching back to the earliest colonial the framers would consider. times. Prior forms provided the basis of This consensus reached a remarkable array broad consensus and set practical boundar- of issues that covered virtually the full range ies to the options available to the framers. of questions political theorists might ask Consequently, the most important areas of about a new regime, including its form— consensus did not need to be “arrived” at republican—and such institutional arrange- or achieved by compromise to begin with; ments as separation of powers. The Virginia they were supplied by experience. To put Plan, the template on which the Conven- this otherwise, if we place the Philadel- tion’s deliberations were based, supplies a phia Convention and its handiwork into a compelling example. Virtually every feature broader historical perspective, we encounter of it that received serious consideration by again a trait in the American political tradi- the delegates can be clearly traced to prior tion that was evident in the period leading forms. The plan of a lower house electing an 30 THE FOUNDING FATHERS: A CONSERVING CAUCUS IN ACTION upper house—famously attributed to James spoke admiringly on June 2 of the British Madison’s study of David Hume4—in fact system, but hastened to add that a “limited appears in the colonies as early as the Fun- Monarchy however was out of the question.” damental Orders of Connecticut and in the Hamilton, for his part, was sufficiently self- postrevolutionary constitutions of Georgia conscious about his British-style proposal on and South Carolina, as well as in Charles June 18 that he had to beg “Gentlemen of Pinckney’s draft of a national plan of govern- different opinions [to] bear with him” on the ment.5 Its commitments to bicameralism subject. and establishment of three separate branches To be sure, disagreement over various of government, as will be seen below, mir- aspects of these principles and how best they ror nearly the entirety of state constitutions. could be secured was substantial, though The Council of Revision, comprising rep- nowhere near as intense as that over a range of resentatives from the executive and judicial issues surrounding federalism (for example, branches, was based on a similar institution what the role of the states should be in the in New York. Only the national negative on central government, the extent of national state laws could be called innovative, yet this power vis-à-vis the states)—the one issue, measure pertained largely to federalism and again, on which the tradition provided the was, in any event, less a source of controversy least guidance. Nevertheless, the delegates— at the Convention than a simple nonstarter all of whom at least acknowledged the that never stood a serious chance. need for a stronger national government— Similarly—and in stark contrast to the recognized the necessity of tackling these many historical accounts that emphasize the issues. In relatively short order, consensus possibility that abuses of popular rule might on these matters produced an understanding drive