My class has agreed up to this point that the foundations of America were very carefully set on the ideals democracy and equality. That’s all well and good, but now it’s time to look deeper into the realities of democracy. How democratic was America in the years leading up to the revolution? Ideals are different from truths, and despite how self-evident Thomas Jefferson may have felt that the concept of equality was (Declaration of Independence), it would be naïve to think that his views were reflected by the entire country. In his letter to Patrick Henry, Jefferson claimed that he was trying his best to represent the sentiments of the colonies at large, and felt that he did so effectively, but the declaration was the work of educated, upper-class men. To really examine the political atmosphere of America, I’m going to look at the entire class system, not just the founding fathers or Boston with its teeming trade.
I have no doubt that the people of colonial Wethersfield believed in democracy; they were probably proud to be living in a country where the common man could represent himself in his own government. But did he? No. As document H of the Wethersfield packet shows, Lower-class individuals were remarkably under-represented in the five-year span from 1751-1756. In fact, the lower-income 50% of white males in the town held absolutely no governmental offices at this time, and the amount grew sluggishly from 1771-1776. In both time spans the gross majority of offices were held by the top 20%, income-wise– 51-56 saw a whopping 82% of offices held by this top 20%, while 71-76 showed a drawback to 77%. Are these the trappings of true democracy? The way I see it, there’s political and societal democracy. The two are different, but so inexorably intertwined that it is virtually impossible to have one without the other. The upper classes in America argue when the paychecks of our leaders are held up that lower-class individuals are perfectly free to run for office, but it’s fairly obvious to see that this, too, is an ideal, not a reality. Where will an impoverished person find the funding for a campaign for office? Even holding a minimal office takes training and education that many people cannot afford. While everyone is free to represent themselves in America’s government, being able to represent themselves is a whole different matter.
What interested me, while studying this topic, was the shift from direct democracy (one man, one vote sort of thing) to representative. Much of our class readings seemed to show a country in which each individual voted on virtually everything, which is definitely no longer a system at play in the US. According to Alan Brinkley’s book The Unfinished Nation, the governmental system was realized to be unstable by the late 1700s. Power to the people does mean less power to the government, and a government that is too weak to govern is useless. The expression “too much democracy” (133) was used, a slightly illogical phrase that, while kind of making me laugh, is understandable. The country strove too far in its ideals and created a government in which angry mobs could force tax collectors to resign in the name of democracy, as seen in document L of the Wethersfield packet. The peoples’ voices were heard, but their voices seem to have been calling for ‘an end to that thing we don’t like’ rather than thinking logically about what is good for their country. Yes, everyone hates taxes, but any reasonable person knows that they are necessary. Given one’s own say in every matter, the human instinct is to start shouting over the rest; the sensible voices cannot be heard in the ruckus.
The United States’ government has always, at its core, relied on the common sense and wisdom of the people themselves. It’s a laudable ideal, but it always has been and continues to be just that– an ideal, more than a reality. The desire for democracy was burning in the country at the time of the revolution, and continues to do so, just not in the sense of pure, direct democracy. Really what this has made me think is just…does it matter whether our country is truly democratic? Like communism, democracy is more efficient on paper than in reality, as can be seen in the incident with the tax-collector. Perhaps we should be looking more into whether the people are happy and empowered than whether our system aligns perfectly with the shining ideal of democracy.
Roz's US History Blog 