The purpose of the Constitution

The revolutionary propaganda engaged the masses in the war by promising them liberty defined as a reduction in wealth inequality and the ability to participate in the political system. This awakened hope in the people of ruling themselves after the Revolution and of an end to the disparity in wealth and of rule by the elites in their new country. [11]

Matthew C. Simpson explains below how the use of democracy by the people to have a voice in state governments scared the elite founders. As a result, the wealthy elites created the Constitution to protect themselves from democracy and to give themselves control of the government. Note that Simpson refers to the true definition of democracy meaning "rule by the people," not to the propaganda definition meaning the right to vote every four years to choose one of the two preselected representatives. Simpson also describes their entitled, elitist view toward the citizens. [12]

During the period after the Revolutionary War most state constitutions were highly democratic, at least for the era. At the same time, the country was suffering a post-war financial crisis that was ruinous to artisans and small farmers. Not surprisingly, common people began to use their new political influence to create economic policies that were favorable to themselves (and disadvantageous to creditors and wealthy citizens), such as inflationary monetary policy and progressive taxation. The Constitution, according to the economic interpretation, was the 1 percent’s revenge, a countermeasure designed to undermine the democratic governments in the states, thereby returning power to wealthy elites and insulating them from popular opinion. …

[Benjamin Rush stated,] "What is the present moral character of the citizens of the United States? I need not describe it. … Nothing but a vigorous and efficient government can prevent their degenerating into savages. Democracy is the devil’s own government." By the late-1780s, it had become conventional wisdom among political elites that, as Elbridge Gerry put it, "The evils we experience flow from an excess of democracy." The Constitution was designed to reverse the democratic trajectory of American politics.

Several of the founders spoke out vehemently against any type of democracy because they wanted to keep the control and were afraid of the people having a voice in government. They considered democracy equal to anarchy. Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and Gouverneur Morris (a friend but no relation to Robert Morris) pushed for a strong, all-powerful central government with representatives for the people but without elections by the people. The elite would choose the members of the Senate, the House, and the President just as they did in Great Britain. The final compromise was election of the President by the Electoral College formed by elites, Senators elected by the states (elites), and members of the House elected by the male, white landowners (the small minority with the money in the states). [13]

The objective was an American monarchy

The Constitution was not the first attempt by the elites of gaining complete control over the country. Nathaniel Gorham, the President of the Continental Congress with support of others including Alexander Hamilton, asked Prince Henry of Prussia to come to the US to be the ruling monarch. [14] Prince Henry declined. As a result, Hamilton and others pushed for a Constitutional Convention with the hope of a monarch elected by the elite that ruled for life. Alexander Hamilton was determined to have a monarch-level, unitary or individual president. [15] He also advocated that senators would serve for life just as the Supreme Court Justices do now.

However, not everyone agreed. During the debates at the Constitutional Convention, there were many opinions and perspectives. Some delegates wanted an actual American monarchy. Some wanted a strong federal government resembling the British monarchy with the representatives chosen by the elite. Some, who were afraid of both a monarchy and a strong federal government that might be equivalent to a monarchy, proposed that the federal government have weaker powers than the state governments.

Some, like Benjamin Franklin, George Mason, and Edmund Randolph, favored a presidential council instead of an individual President, which they referred to as a "plural executive." George Mason defended the concept saying, "If strong and extensive powers are vested in the Executive, and that Executive consists only of one person; the Government will of course degenerate…into a Monarchy." According to James Pfiffner, "Most of the framers, however, hoped for a 'patriot king' who would be above partisan faction, with their ideal being George Washington." [16]

Power was transferred to the few

In the end, Hamilton and those wanting a strong federal government got what they wanted. As a result, the Constitution gave the President of the United States more power than the king of Great Britain had at the time. "What seemed to emerge was an 'Aristo-Democratical Monarchy', as suggested by John Adams in a letter to Benjamin Rush in 1790," three years after the Constitution was written. [17]

In a new look at the founding of America, Eric Nelson writes that the Constitution did not create a radical new form of democracy. Instead, it created a "very traditional mixed monarchy." Yoni Appelbaum described the "mixed monarchy" like this. [18]

At its head stood a king—an uncrowned one called a president—with sweeping powers, whose steadying hand would hopefully check the factionalism of the Congress. The two chambers of the legislature…would make laws, but the president—whom the Founders regarded as a third branch of the legislature—could veto them. He could also appoint his own Cabinet, command the Army, and make treaties.

Key takeaway: The objective of the majority of delegates to the Constitutional Convention was the "transfer of power from the many to the few" and that is what they accomplished with the Constitution.   [19]