|
America: Myth of Equality |
|
||
|
|
|||
|
|||
To many, the Unites States serves as the ideal model of democracy for the
modern world. Yet, how truly worthy is America of this status? Although it has
been said that, “Equality is as American as baseball, hot dogs, and apple pie,”
one must be extremely critical when analyzing such a statement. By taking a
historical perspective to the question of how “equal” American equality
actually is, it is simple to recognize how problematic the “Land of the Free”
mentality can be. The early America’s most prominent thinkers have been
sensationalized and given credit for developing a free and equal system.
However, one can recognize that their manner of thinking was far from this idea
of “all men are created equal” by critical examination of their literature.
When analyzing equality, a sociological and legal approach must be made. In the
case of the United States, the sociological stratification, or division of
power, of minority groups had adversely affected the development of the legal
system. Especially in the 1600s and 1700s, legal and social equality of those
not of the Caucasian persuasion, the less fortunate, and of the female gender
was almost nonexistent. This inequality is a direct result of the early
American society’s ranking system. Equality was not perceived in the minds of
such individuals as John Winthrop, John Adams, and James Madison, and as a
result, their significant accomplishments towards the development of the
American system have tainted the institution itself.
One of the earliest American social groups was the 17th Century Puritans. This
society had an extremely unique and strict manner of thinking that was entirely
based on inequality. This is clearly represented by the writings of the Puritan
leader John Winthrop. In “A Model of Christian Charity,” Winthrop outlines the
societal rationale, and in turn, the disparity of equality in his society. The
gist of the Puritan way of life is that, by the grace of God, certain
individuals were empowered with the ability to be enlightened and the capability
of achieving much within the society itself. However, by the same reasoning,
some individuals were also destined to take the lesser roles in society, and as
a result, had no power to move up within the ranks because of this inescapable
predetermination. This is represented by the following Winthrop passage: “God
Almighty…..hath so disposed of the condition of mankind as in all times some
must be rich, some poor; some high and eminent in power and dignity, others
mean and in subjection” (Winthrop, 79). To further inequality, Winthrop
stressed the need for each to take their place for the good of society:
“…hold conformity with the rest of His (God’s) works, being delighted to show
forth the glory of His wisdom in the variety and difference of the creatures
and the glory of His power, in ordering all these differences for the
preservation and good of the whole” (Winthrop, 79).
The Puritans did not believe in equality, and any problems resulting from this
mindset was silenced by Winthrop’s pleads for those unhappy souls, assigned by
the Almighty to be subordinate, to take their place for the preservation of
society.
Although inequalities may not been less evident later on in the 1700s, societal
stratification was a factor during the formation of the American political
system. One leader at this time was the nation’s second president, John Adams.
Previous to the release of the Declaration of Independence in 1776, which Adams
had a significant role in developing, a set of correspondences between Adams
and his wife, Abigail, show readers the role of women during this age. Abigail
wrote to her husband suggesting that the Declaration of Independence be
modified to include provisions for increasing women’s rights (Adams, 65). John
Adams’ response to this letter is incredibly grating:
“As to your extraordinary Code of Laws, I cannot but laugh. We have been told
that our Struggle has loosened the bands of Government everywhere. That
Children and Apprentices were disobedient - that schools and Colledges were
grown turbulent – that Indians slighted their Guardians and Negros grew
insolent to their Masters. But your letter was the first Intimation that
another Tribe more numerous and powerful then all the rest were grown
discontented” (Adams, 66).
Adams goes further to say his wife’s ideas were a result of her “saucy”
personality (Adams, 66). Not only was this “Founding Father” clearly sexist,
but he also saw minority groups as lessors. This, however, is not taught in the
history books. Popular knowledge is that Adams devoted his life to politics,
participating with distinction first in the revolutionary activities of Boston
and Philadelphia, and later in the founding of the republic.
At the time the Constitution was being analyzed for possible ratification, a
set of published writings proved to be invaluable support toward the future
framework for the American “democratic” governmental system. The Federalist
Papers, written by James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and John Jay, helped
change the tide toward support for ratification. Although these individuals
have been credited with the formation of this free and equal system for which
America prides itself, one must question whether they had any alternative
motives in forming this particular system.
In Federalist Paper No. 10, James Madison details his thoughts on how dangerous
factions can be towards the future form of government. In actuality, Madison
says that almost nothing is more important in this proposed system is, “its
tendency to break and control the violence of faction” (Madison, 107). Later,
in Madison’s Federalist No. 51, he describes how the Constitution’s separation
of powers clauses are invaluable because it makes domination by such “factions”
virtually impossible. Yet, whom is Madison depicting by the term “factions?” He
writes in No. 10 that:
“By a faction, I understand a number of citizens, whether amounting to a
majority or minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common
impulse of passion, or of interest, adverse to the rights of other citizens, or
to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community,” (Madison, 108).
This is quite an ambiguous definition. However, if one were examines the
backgrounds of those who wrote the Federalist Papers and of those who developed
the Constitution, it is very clear who they were trying to protect the
government from.
Madison was born to a large slave-holding family in the estate of Montpelier,
Virginia. After graduating from Princeton, he rose through the ranks of
Virginian politics until he was selected to represent the state in the
Continental Congress (http://www.jmu.edu/madison /madisonb.htm). Madison was no
common vagrant. He was born into power, money, and a good education, which at
the time, was the typical stereotype of the American politician. As a result,
it was the goals and aspirations of this group that were manifested in the
initial American system. The factions that Madison concerns himself with were
the population’s majority, otherwise known as the lesser classes. As a result,
the establishment of division of power and checks and balances clauses would
give the populace a lesser chance of gaining much authority over the already
established aristocracy.
If this is the case, why is America perceived to be relatively fair and equal today?
Fortunately the early American politicians did develop framework to allow the
Constitution to evolve, and combined with the political movements in both
minority and women’s rights of the end of this century, much of this unjust
stigma has been eliminated from the system. Still, racial discrepancies in the
courts occur more frequently then not, and the social makeup of American
politicians continues to follow a predetermined “mold.” Is this a direct result
of the discrepancies formed in the earlier stages of American history? It is
hard for anyone to tell. What is indisputable is that the Declaration of
Independence’s statement, “All men are created equal,” was far from the truth
during early American history.
Word Count: 1,323