Zinn’s thesis 1:
The Bill of Rights was only added after popular protest; the Constitution is not written in the same spirit as the Declaration of Independence: the latter was revolutionary in its language while the Constitution merely reflects the interests of wealth and property.
Opposing view:
The first point concerning the Bill of Rights appears to be an error of fact and contradicts his thesis that the government only moves in a progressive direction under pressure from large popular movements for change. The “protest” came from men like Patrick Henry and others–themselves political leaders–as distinct from organized protest fomented by the general public.
It was already understood by the end of the Constitutional Convention of 1787 that a Bill of Rights was necessary; this understanding led to the ratification of the Constitution in 1789 with the Bill of Rights approved just two years later in 1791. The delegates who fought for such amendments were themselves often of high social standing in their home states with their own political authority.
The Constitution itself faced an uphill fight at first. Although eight states had ratified it by June 1788, two states had not. The outcome of the vote in two more states, Virginia and New York, was as yet uncertain. Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay worked together to author a series of articles known as The Federalist Papers.
One of the objections to the Bill of Rights was not hostile to the idea itself but rather that, since people have many rights, it would be difficult to list them all. Was it not sufficient to describe and circumscribe the powers of the government? If the framers of the Constitution left out an enumeration of specific rights, would that mean such rights did not exist or would not guaranteed under law?
There was great concern expressed on this point, so much so that James Madison, who originally did not see the need for a bill of rights, ended up championing the cause. Not only were specific liberties guaranteed, but an overall theoretical solution was to be found in the carefully worded language of the last two amendments of the Bill of Rights:
Ninth Amendment: “The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”
Tenth Amendment: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
The debate whether to adopt the Constitution was extensive and vigorous in the various states and gave the Anti-Federalist delegates ample opportunity to air their grievances and to fine-tune their arguments. A moderate group also emerged who expressed some doubts and misgivings but concluded that even an imperfect Constitution was necessary to preserve the Union; that greater dangers lurked if it were not ratified.
Those delegates whose main objection centered on the lack of a bill of rights made their views sufficiently well known to carry the day, but it was not as though the Federalists were unresponsive to the point. James Madison, initially believing additional amendments to be unnecessary, in turn becomes the champion of the Bill of Rights.
No doubt the threat of certain states to refuse to ratify the Constitution without a Bill of Rights was significant, but the relative ease with which the Bill of Rights was added indicates that there was no serious or prolonged opposition on the part of the Founding Fathers to its inclusion as part of the Constitution; there is little evidence to conclude that the framers opposed the Bill of Rights and only agreed to its adoption in the face of popular protest.
Leaders like Patrick Henry made their point with or without demonstrations; whether delegates who favored a Bill of Rights–most of whom were themselves of the well-to-do class–represented “popular protest” remains a moot point.
As to Zinn’s view that The “Declaration of Independence” was revolutionary while the “Constitution” was not, I would say only this: one cannot separate the two documents. The first, the Declaration, explained why America was fighting for her independence from England and announced America’s belief in the principles of natural law and human rights; the second, the Constitution, represented the actual structural form of government needed to establish and protect such rights.
The Constitution was bound to appear a more practical blueprint for the functions of government when compared to the Declaration’s lofty statements of principles, but both served to reinforce one another and both remained true to the same set of basic principles underlying individual liberty and an elected government.
The Preamble to the Constitution in no way contradicts what appears in the Declaration of Independence. Both the Preamble and the Bill of Rights are absolutely an extension of the language found in the Declaration of Independence.
In short, both documents—the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution–go together hand in hand and one cannot fully appreciate either without understanding both. For example, here is an excerpt from each document presented side by side:
Declaration of Independence (1776):
“We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness . . .”
Preamble to the Constitution (1787):
“We the People of the United States, in order to . . . establish justice . . . and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”
Note well the appearance of the word “liberty” in both documents! Where, then, is the difference Zinn tries to suggest? If Zinn wishes to amend his statement to argue that the Constitution protected slavery, that is true and perhaps a better way to make his point; however, slavery existed at the time of the writing of the Declaration of Independence in 1776 and was essentially left unchallenged by it as well.
Thus, to suggest that the Declaration of Independence was “revolutionary” but the Constitution was “not revolutionary” is to miss the all-important historical and organic link between the two founding documents of America. Zinn and other writers have described well the many groups left out of America’s new-found freedoms but they carry it to excess when they miss the legal and literary pairing of these two historical treasures.
The purpose of the Declaration of Independence was not consummated until the Constitution was adopted. Both documents are revolutionary; it is the Constitution which establishes the structure for a new government to be defined by elections and not hereditary rule.
This historic change-over from monarchy to democracy (however limited suffrage remained at the time) is an essential part of the political revolution which took place from 1775-1791. The Declaration of Independence may have been a brave overture to the events that ensued but it required the success of the American Revolution and the adoption of the Constitution to complete the colonists’ metamorphosis from subjects of the Crown to self-governing Americans.
To not appreciate the intimate connection between the two documents is an unfortunate, almost bewildering misrepresentation of the core values of most Americans. On this point, Zinn appears to miss the boat entirely; he is so eager to expose all the cruel ironies and injustices of American society that he overlooks the great significance of those first democratic steps taken.
While we can acknowledge the pain, discrimination, and suffering of many minority groups throughout American history, it does not mean that the Founding Fathers were insincere, devious, or solely motivated by selfish aims. They moved the clock as far forward as they could on such matters of individual liberties and self-government, within the context of their own day and time. They created language that was taken to heart by every new generation in its quest to achieve a fuller liberty for themselves and their fellow countrymen.
We can choose to wallow in the invective of negativity through cynicism or we can admire the generation of the Revolution for their heroic sacrifices and sufferings, their indomitable spirit, and their willingness to proclaim the heritage of freedom for all human beings.
In sum, both documents remain true to similar principles and beliefs. As for those aspects of American society which were not in keeping with these announced principles, neither document was able to solve those contradictions at the time it was first published.
Nevertheless, that revolutionary generation did create a gift for us for the future: a gift of wise and eloquent words in which our most cherished democratic beliefs were expressed so beautifully and rationally that they became a force for change in their own right. These ideas would be relied upon repeatedly in the many hard-fought battles for equality yet to come, not only here but in other lands as well.
This lofty and freedom-seeking language created a new horizon of greater freedom, optimism, and opportunity for millions of Americans. Both the philosophy of the Declaration of Independence and the institutions of the U.S. Constitution charted a new path of freedom for all great humanity, including many diverse peoples beyond our own shores.
Both documents should be treasured equally!
