Americans during the Revolutionary era were intently interested in the nature of government and how best to preserve liberty. From 1763 to 1800, public debate over these issues was intense and wide-ranging. Halfway through this period, many Americans decided that their liberty could best be preserved outside of the British Empire. In an era of great political experimentation, Americans declared their independence, state constitutions replaced colonial charters, and the Articles of Confederation created a “perpetual Union” that replaced the English imperial authority.
By 1787, however, Americans faced another “crisis.” As the Virginia act authorizing the appointment of delegates to the Constitutional Convention warned, “the good people of America are to decide the solemn question, whether they will by wise and magnanimous efforts reap the just fruits of that Independence, which they have so gloriously acquired, and of that Union which they have cemented with so much of their common blood; or whether by giving way to unmanly jealousies and prejudices, or to partial and transitory interests, they will renounce the auspicious blessings prepared for them by the Revolution.” It was now hoped that Americans would “lay aside every inferior consideration, and concur in such further concessions and provisions, as may be necessary to secure the great objects for which that Government was instituted, and to render the United States as happy in peace, as they have been glorious in war.” This act, drafted by James Madison, was a political rallying cry that was sent to all the state governors and was widely printed in newspapers throughout the country. Drawing upon the Articles of Confederation, the state constitutions, and their English and American colonial heritage, the delegates to the Constitutional Convention of 1787 proposed a new and unprecedented form of government that greatly divided Americans in a year-long struggle over ratification.
Caleb Wallace, a Kentucky lawyer and judge on the Kentucky district court, captured the ambivalence of many Americans in a 3 May 1788 letter to his friend William Fleming, a delegate to the Virginia ratifying Convention who voted for ratification in June 1788. Wallace wrote: “As by a Federal Union the independence of the American States was obtained, I have always considered the continuing and perfecting that Confederation equally essential to its permanency and rising glory; therefore the calling a continental Convention was my anxious desire, and I confess on the first perusal the government they have devised seemed in the main to answer my expectations.” Like many Americans, Wallace acknowledged the deficiencies of the Articles of Confederation and desired a government “invested with ample powers to accomplish all federal purposes.” He praised the work of the Philadelphia Convention but also expressed fears at “the danger of introducing greater evils than those from which we had been delivered at the expence of much blood and treasure. How common, how natural is it for narrow minded man by avoiding Scylla to fall into Charybdis!” For Wallace, the “powers and prerogatives” of the Senate, Executive branch, and the judiciary in the Constitution were “intolerable.” Furthermore, the omission of a Bill of Rights by the delegates at the Philadelphia Convention led him “to suspect the virtue of their intentions.” Wallace also had misgivings regarding the lack of a separation of powers noting there was a deficiency in “defining the limits of the several departments of their intended Government.”
The illustration below depicts the attitude of Americans on government during the debate over the new Constitution. It shows the extremes of “Anarchy” and “Despotism” with a wide range of “Acceptable Government” falling in between. Americans, like Caleb Wallace, often used the mythological Greek metaphorical quandary of being “between Scylla and Charybdis” to describe the dilemma that they faced in trying to avoid the pitfalls of two dangerous extremes. According to Homer, the dangers of Scylla and Charybdis appeared on opposite sides of the Strait of Messina between the Italian mainland and the island of Sicily. Scylla, often depicted as a six-headed sea monster, was a rocky shoal on the mainland, while Charybdis was a giant whirlpool off the coast of Sicily. As maritime hazards, they were so close to each other that they posed an almost inescapable deathtrap to even the most experienced mariners. Avoiding one would chance destruction from the other. Likewise, Americans in the 1780s hoped to safely navigate their danger-laden, constitution-making voyage in seeking a safe and effective form of government to replace the Articles of Confederation that they feared would end in either disunion or some form of anarchy, while an unamended Constitution would eventually end in despotism.
The first line in the illustration above shows how Federalists aligned on government. Most believed that the Articles of Confederation would end in some form of anarchy, while the Constitution would produce an acceptable form of government.
The second line shows where moderate Antifederalists stood. Some felt that the Articles of Confederation were dangerous. Others, however, felt that either the Articles with amendments or an amended Constitution could provide an acceptable form of government, while an unamended Constitution would eventually end in despotism.
The third line shows that a few strong Antifederalists felt that the Articles of Confederation were too weak and needed to be amended to function effectively. An unamended Constitution would surely lead to despotism.