This month, we are focusing on our founding fathers. I would like to draw special attention to one little known, perhaps even forgotten, founder by the name of Gouverneur Morris. Despite his funny sounding name, the impact he had on the constitution and the early development of the United States is profound. He is sometimes called the “penman of the constitution” in contrast to Madison’s moniker, “the father of the constitution,” but this was not for lack of influence. Anyone who has even read just a small selection of Madison’s Notes of the Federal Convention of 1787 will remember the frequency of Gouverneur Morris’s contributions, the respect with which they were met, and the enthusiasm with which he participated in the convention. He was not only the Convention’s most frequent speaker, but also played key roles in seemingly every one of its sub-committees, from the Committee on Style to the Committee of Detail (to which committee many challenges were deferred which threatened to undermine the entire project of the convention, including the challenge of proportional representation, the election of the Executive, and several others). Without overstating his importance, we can acknowledge that the revered preamble to the constitution, the electoral college, the three-fifths compromise, and even the very establishment of a strong federal government over the weak system of confederation that existed prior, are all attributable to Gouverneur Morris in no small degree. But my reasons for focusing on Gouverneur Morris go beyond the desire to appreciate his great contributions to our country’s founding.
There is a tendency for conservatives today to view the founding as primarily an experiment of Liberalism. Such sentiments seem to have accelerated following the publication of Why Liberalism Failed, by Patrick Deneen. Citing the clear influences of Hobbes, Locke and the like on our founding principles, many conservatives portray the founding as a test case for Liberal theory; the very use of the term ‘American experiment’ seems to lend itself to such an interpretation; an experiment of what? Clearly of classical Liberal political theory. Combining this position with the thesis of Deneen leads to a startling realization, namely that the American founding was an experiment doomed from the start. Many on the political right seem willing to hold to this conclusion.
The presence of Gouverneur Morris, however, seems to nuance this picture slightly. Morris was not a Liberal, not even in the classical, philosophical sense that we ascribe to Madison, Hamilton, and Jefferson (to various degrees). His speeches in the convention on the proper election of Senators, to take one example, show a severe distrust in the democracy of the common man; he attempts to align the structure of the legislature to be established with that of England, and he reveals a skepticism of the Liberal narrative of how authority comes to be (i.e. through the consent of the people to be governed).
Morris, a conservative, had great influence in our founding, by directing the conversations of the Committee of the Whole, participating in the Committee of Detail, and even heading the Committee of Style, which gave final wording and editing to the proposed constitution. Perhaps we should pause and consider this prior to writing off the “American experiment” as a failed test of Liberal political theory. I would propose that maybe the American revolution was the result of a Liberal assertion about politics, but that the drafting and adoption of the constitution was a more conservative movement. The failure of the Articles of Confederation was apparent to all, and it seems to have represented an early failure of the particular strain of Liberalism on display in the writings of the American revolutionaries, from Thomas Paine to Thomas Jefferson. The very early hopes of a Liberal utopia in America after the Revolution were dashed against the rocks of reality, and the response was the proposed constitution, as edited and largely influenced by a conservative.
So, what is the constitution conserving? This is my first time asking myself this question, but the founders drafted a plan which in many ways mirrors the structure of the very government they had just overthrown; this seems to be a very conservative reversion, adopted and to some degree proposed by the philosophical adherents to Liberalism. Therefore, the constitution seems to conserve the institutional and juridical advantages of the English system as developed over a millennium, albeit with procedural tweaks to fit the political circumstances of the American founding. Apart from the intense debate and somewhat odd compromise reached on the structure, appointment, etc. of the executive branch (for which they could hardly look to England as a model), the primary development that the constitution brings to the table of political theory seems to be the principle of federalism. But once again, federalism is not a Liberal notion. In fact, Federalism is diametrically opposed to the theory of Hobbes (at the very least) and is really just a method by which the very conservative principle of subsidiarity can be applied to the modern nation-state with its vast geographical and cultural expanses.
It is no wonder why conservatives have always been supporters of the constitution: it is a deeply conservative document, albeit proposed, administered, and carried out by a predominantly Liberal group of men. But it was proposed and adopted out of the necessity posed by the very collapse of the Articles of Confederation. And we have Gouverneur Morris to thank, in large part, for the conservative reversion that the constitution represents.
So, how did we arrive at the current situation where many conservatives are ready to philosophically abandon the principles of the American founding? It seems now like our whole system is pervaded by the principles of modern Liberalism. Even the language of the conservatives in power seems to mirror that of liberals, undermining any truly conservative efforts. But that same system’s design, which aligns virtue with virtue, and pits vice against vice, counteracting the corrupting effect of power, and which establishes a very clear basis (i.e. federalism) for the practice of subsidiarity, is a conservative development, in plain contrast with the Liberal notion of government. We are governed by men, not by angels, not even properly speaking by laws. That is why the virtue and vice of those in power is of such importance (and was one of the primary refrains of the constitutional convention). When conservatives say that we are a “nation of laws, not of men,” they are using the language of liberalism. So again, how did we arrive here? It was not because of systemic or structural inadequacies present since the founding, and not because of latent liberal principles written in invisible ink between the lines of the constitution. Quite simply, it is because “We the People” can adhere to or deviate from laws, and those in power do in fact direct such changes, therefore, the choice is not between being a nation of laws or a nation of men, but rather between being a nation of lawful men or of lawless men. To say this more precisely, and more conservatively, ours will be a nation of virtuous men or of vicious men.
Thank you for reading! As always, we appreciate and encourage feedback on how we are doing in the comments section. Please do not forget to like this post and, more importantly, share The Broken Binnacle with a friend!