Pragmatism and idealism in the process of nation-building (1781-1788)

Résumé du document

"Idealism without pragmatism is impotent. Pragmatism without idealism is meaningless. The key to effective leadership is pragmatic idealism." (Richard Nixon). Were the very first years of the new nation, born of the American Revolution, marked by a "spirit of pragmatic idealism", as B. Bailyn pointed out with almost two centuries of hindsight? As a matter of fact, the Confederation period, as this era was called, enclosed major changes in American history: during this short decade, the Articles of Confederation, ratified in March 1781, were gradually replaced by the Constitution of 1787. The Declaration of Independence, proclaimed in 1776, had brought about dreams and ideals which, in the minds of the people, suddenly seemed reachable, palpable and intended to turn real. The idealistic dimension of the Revolution lies at the core of the first Constitution of the new nation, for it attempted to create an ideal state, built upon principles such as liberty and democracy. In the wake of independence, the colonists were eager to form a government that would differ altogether from that of the British oppressor. However, hope was soon disappointed, since the Articles of Confederation, quickly deemed too idealistic to be put into practice, and did not hold their promises. All the expectations were set on a new document, one of the most important in the history of the United States: the Constitution of 1787 was born, and had to buckle down to the arduous tasks of reconciling antagonistic views, of preserving democracy while averting anarchy, of strengthening the central government while avoiding oppression, and to provide a brand new political expression to a nation which had been so far a "loose league of friendship" among the Confederate States. It is not surprising that the Constitution of the United States was soon nicknamed "the Great Compromise"; it was a successful attempt at putting an end to the strong dichotomy and to the bipartite systems that had been either remnants of the past or creations of the Revolution and the ensuing Articles of Confederation: Conservatives v. Radicals, big states v. smaller ones, Nationalists v. the Statesright School, North v. South, democracy v. monarchy, and idealism v. pragmatism.

Extraits

[...] It was felt that very name of a republic implie[d] that the property of the people should be represented in the legislature, and decide the rule of justice” (V. L. Parrington, Main Currents in American Thought): no common man should be at the head of a state and represent the people. Ordinary people were not to be trusted, but checked by a set of men. Was this idea that of a genuine republic? Slaves, colored people, women and non-property owners were excluded from political life: the government was based on the demands of a small minority. What was, in this context, the legitimacy of the new Constitution? [...]

[...] E. Marienstras, Naissance de la Répulique Fédérale, from The Writings of James Madison. G. Hugues, Coup d'Etat à Philadelphie? R. Emerson, From Empire to Nation. [...]

[...] It was soon argued that the new Constitution of 1787 was based on no republican ideal in the end: the very concept of republicanism was accused of having been modified to fit into a political model that would best suit the political elites' ambitions. They could take advantage of the situation to serve their own ambitions and regain the power lost under the Articles of Confederation. The Federalists feared that a strong centralized government might put power into the hands of a few. [...]

[...] This notion of “pragmatism idealism” also applied to the very conception of the American nation. Indeed, one is entitled to wonder whether an American nation actually existed at the time, and whether the expression of the nation could be uttered in the midst of conflicting interests. The end of the eighteenth century in America was marked by the emergence of the concept of nation-belonging. In fact, this notion was not brand new, since it came from the concept of Manifest Destiny, which was the driving force responsible for changing the face of American history –from the Pilgrim Fathers to the twenty-first century–, the philosophy that created the nation. [...]

[...] All the expectations were set on a new document, one of the most important in the history of the United States: the Constitution of 1787 was born, and had to buckle down to the arduous tasks of reconciling antagonistic views, of preserving democracy while averting anarchy, of strengthening the central government while avoiding oppression, and to provide a brand new political expression to a nation which had been so far a “loose league of friendship” among the Confederate States. It is not surprising that the Constitution of the United States was soon nicknamed Great Compromise”; it was a successful attempt at putting an end to the strong dichotomy and to the bipartite systems that had been either remnants of the past or creations of the Revolution and the ensuing Articles of Confederation: Conservatives v. Radicals, big states v. smaller ones, Nationalists v. the Statesright School, North v. South, democracy v. monarchy, and idealism v. pragmatism. [...]