A Realistic Perspective of the American Colonies in 1778

A Realistic Perspective of the American Colonies in 1778 The framers of the Constitution had an essentially negative view of human nature. Those advocating for a strong, centralized “federal” government, were concerned that a pure democracy could be could be taken over by a populous mob. Those advocating for a limited, weak, central government were concerned that too much power concentrated in a federal structure could lead to tyranny. While the framers approached the crafting of the Constitution from a two different perspectives, they held a common belief about their fellow man: that man with too much power may become corrupt, and will abuse that power at the expense of others. Both factions had good arguments, and both had solid historical reasons to support their views. An advocate of a strong, national government, such as James Madison, could point to the mob riots of economically distressed farmers and the frightening military uprising lead by Daniel Shay, known as Shay’s Rebellion. Shay and his militant sympathizers threatened the authority of State of Massachusetts, which could have led to civil chaos. This uprising underscored the need for a comprehensive, national constitution. Later, the French Revolution’s mobs that executed the king and queen further emphasized the dangers of popular uprisings and the need for a central government. A supporter of a weak central government in which power resides within the individual state, such as Thomas Jefferson, could point to the tyranny of King George, and Great Britain’s refusal to provide the colonies with representation. Both views had valid reasons for structuring a government to protect against men who become corrupted by power either as a despot or as a leader of factional interests. The Constitutional Conventions, convened between May and September 1787, addressed these two opposing approaches to government through compromises written into the Constitution. It begins with the statement “We the