Democracy: Exploring the Foundations and Limitations of American Democratic Principles
Origins of American Democracy
Many of the intellectual foundations of American democracy—liberalism, popular sovereignty, and majority rule—are commonly attributed to John Locke (Tuckness). Drawing from Natural Law Theory, Locke defended the natural freedom, equality, and sovereignty of all people in his Second Treatise of Government, positing that such natural rights were derived from God and independent of any particular law of a society (Locke ). Locke asserted the social contract as a corollary of these rights, claiming that governments derived their power from the "consent of the people" (Locke ), and that citizens reserved the right to dissolve their governments when they became tyrannical (Locke ). These concepts are reflected and almost directly quoted in the American Declaration of Independence, which affirmed that "all men are created equal," governments derive their "just powers from the consent of the governed," and that men are "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." Yet, although the Framers of the Constitution, such as Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, were influenced by Lockean ideas of democracy, the scheme of government they devised not only sanctioned slavery and excluded certain populations from voting but also structurally prevented the establishment of mechanisms for complete popular sovereignty. This section will examine the dissonance between the ideals of American democracy and their implementation throughout U.S. history.
Structural Limitations of American Democracy
Excerpt from Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall's Bicentennial Speech (1987)
"Even these ringing phrases from the Declaration of Independence [”all men are created equal”] are filled with irony, for an early draft of what became that Declaration assailed the King of England for suppressing legislative attempts to end the slave trade and for encouraging slave rebellions. The final draft adopted in 1776 did not contain this criticism. And so again at the Constitutional Convention eloquent objections to the institution of slavery went unheeded, and its opponents eventually consented to a document which laid a foundation for the tragic events that were to follow."
On the Bicentennial of the U.S. Constitution, Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall stated that the Constitution was “defective from the start.” Specifically, he was referring to features of the original U.S. Constitution and economy, such as the Three-Fifths Compromise and institutional slavery. During the Constitutional Convention, large northern states, such as Massachusetts, favored a bicameral Congress with legislative representation based on population or wealth; smaller, southern states, however, preferred that slaves be counted for representation (University of Wisconsin, Madison, “The Debates Over Slavery in the Philadelphia Convention”). Despite the efforts of delegates, including Charles Pinckney, to make “blacks equal to the whites in the ratio of representation” (University of Wisconsin, Madison, “Debates in the Philadelphia Convention Over the 3/5 Clause 29 May–12 July 1787”), southern states were ultimately allowed to keep their slaves, in exchange for giving Congress authority to regulate commerce. The “tragic events that were to follow” included the exploitation of slave labor, torture, and dehumanization, but most pertinent to this section of the study: the exclusion of free and enslaved Blacks from democracy.
Although many did not pursue citizenship, Indigenous Americans were not considered citizens and thus were not permitted to vote. On the other hand, white women were prohibited from voting by many state constitutions and coverture laws, which essentially nullified a married woman's legal identity for owning property, entering into contracts, and divorcing her husband (Murrill). Hence, only a select group of propertied white males could vote before the so-called Jacksonian Era.
Beyond the features of the Constitution that overtly excluded Blacks, Indigenous peoples, and women, Framers such as James Madison expressed a distrust of the democracy commonly heralded at the time. For instance, in the Federalist No. 10, Madison argued that a pure democracy could not cure the “mischiefs of faction.” Notably, he claimed that such democracies were “incompatible with personal security or the rights of property,” and that a wise, chosen body of citizens would be better suited against factionalism and corruption (Madison). In other words, Madison advocated for a democratic republic, rather than a pure democracy. This distinction clarifies other outwardly undemocratic mechanisms of the Constitution, including the election of senators and the Electoral College.
While delegates such as Pennsylvania's James Wilson proposed the direct election of senators, such proposals received little support. For example, Connecticut Delegate Robert Sherman noted that the common people “should have as little to do as may be about the Government. They lack information and are constantly liable to be misled.” (United States Senate). Ultimately, the delegates approved the election of senators through state legislatures, which made the Senate more accountable to state authority. Similarly, the direct election of the president was opposed by delegates—namely Charles Pinckney, Hugh Williamson, and Robert Sherman—who argued that populous states would benefit from direct election of the executive (Pfiffner). Delegate Elbridge Gerry even remarked, “The ignorance of the people would put it in the power of some one set of men dispersed through the Union...” (Pfiffner).
It is necessary to note that while some delegates opposed direct election mechanisms due to concerns about demagoguery, many delegates opposed them to provide checks and balances on the legislative branch of the federal government. For instance, Madison's Virginia Plan originally authorized the House of Representatives to elect the Senate; however, many delegates opposed this because they feared it would compromise the Senate's independence from the House (United States Senate). Likewise, the Virginia Plan also allocated the election of the executive to the legislature; however, fears of executive subordination to the legislative branch prompted the implementation of the Electoral College1 (Pfiffner). All in all, a combination of federalist ideas and fears of direct democracy contributed to mechanisms that decreased popular sovereignty. Despite the conspicuous exclusion of numerous groups, democratic republicanism, and undemocratic mechanisms of the Constitution, democracy would become the calling card of political discourse, ingrained in the political mythology of America.
Myth: Democracy in American Thought
During the so-called Jacksonian Era of Democracy, many states held constitutional conventions where they removed property ownership and certain tax payments as requirements for suffrage. As a result, a burgeoning white male electorate consisting of both the wealthy and poor emerged; ostensibly, America was achieving “universal suffrage” (Huston, 5). At the same time, states implemented measures to formally exclude women and Black Americans from voting. Even with the abolishment of property requirements for voting, women were still legally considered dependents, and most states did not recognize their right to vote; hence, over half of the population was disenfranchised. Similarly, by the 1850s, “...All but five2 states restricted or prohibited voting by African Americans.” (Huston, 6). Notwithstanding the evident contradiction in the term “universal suffrage,” democracy and liberty were proclaimed as facets of the American political system.
Petition of Citizens of Richmond (1829–1830)
“But, it is said, yield them [the “common man”] this right [universal suffrage], and they will abuse it: property, that is, landed property will be rendered insecure, or at least overburthened, by those who possess it not.... If we are sincerely republican, we must give our confidence to the principles we profess. We have been taught by our fathers, that all power is vested in, and derived from, the people; not the freeholders [those who own land]; that the majority of the community... have... the political right of creating and remoulding at their will, their civil institutions. Nor can this right be any where more safely deposited. The generality of mankind, doubtless, desire to become owners of property; left free to reap the fruits of their labors, they will seek to acquire it honestly. It can never be their interest to overburthen, or render precarious, what they themselves desire to enjoy in peace....” (Huston, 4).
Later in this petition for so-called universal suffrage, the authors remarked that “...For obvious reasons, by almost universal consent, women and children, aliens and slaves, are excluded.” (Huston, 5).
In Democracy in America, Alexis de Tocqueville portrayed the U.S. as a society defined by the “equality of conditions.” (Tocqueville). In so doing, he reinforced the myth of widespread civic participation. His work is one of many in a sea of discourse that, over time, attached labels such as “equality,” “liberty,” and “freedom” to the purportedly democratic American political system. Lincoln's Gettysburg Address described the U.S. as a nation “conceived in liberty,” and that the government was “...of the people, by the people, for the people...” However, this address was given during the Civil War, a conflict that ultimately led to the abolition of the “peculiar institution” of slavery, which had existed prior to the nation's founding. This contradiction between professed ideals and reality expanded the implementation of democracy, but also bred conflict.
Conflict: Challenging and Confirming American Democracy
Shortly after the conclusion of the deadliest conflict in American history, the Thirteenth Amendment was ratified on December 6, 1865, ostensibly abolishing slavery and involuntary servitude. Yet, southern states, namely Virginia, passed laws similar to the Virginia Vagrancy Act, which provided that “...any person alleged to be a vagrant....be hired out for the best wages which can be procured....” (Du Bois, 173). These Black Codes became ubiquitous throughout the South and represented a pattern against civil rights: Although legal provisions existed to protect voting rights, the de facto unimplementation of such provisions came at the expense of democracy for marginalized populations.
The establishment of the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments occurred not only through the Congressional Republican majority but also through the alignment of abolitionism and industry. The increase of monopoly profits depended on high protective tariffs, the validity of public debt, and control of national banks and currency (Du Bois, 327). These factors depended on the suffrage of freedmen and their alignment with the Republican Party, which is why legislation such as the Fourteenth Amendment was contested but ratified unanimously by northern states (Du Bois 328).
President Ulysses S. Grant on the Ratification of the Fifteenth Amendment (March 30, 1870)
"Such notification is unusual, but I deem a departure from the usual custom justifiable. A measure which makes at once four millions of people voters, who were heretofore declared by the highest tribunal in the land not citizens of the United States 3, nor eligible to become so... is indeed a measure of grander importance than any other one act of the kind from the foundation of our free government to the present day." (Du Bois, 594)
While the 15th Amendment would outwardly protect voting rights, it was largely left unenforced until the 1960s. Additionally, it did not protect women’s suffrage.
However, by 1870, Republicans had lost their two-thirds majority in Congress. And with the Panic of 1873, the Freedmen’s Bank—which at one time reached total deposits of $57,000,000—was liquidated and closed in 1874 (Du Bois, 600). These developments constituted a pivot of capital and federal enforcement from the South, and they occurred in conjunction with the rise of terrorist groups such as the Ku Klux Klan and events like the Colfax Massacre, where Blacks were murdered for attempting to vote. The impending dearth of Black officeholders coincided with the rise of Jim Crow voting suppression techniques, particularly poll taxes, literacy tests, lynching, and grandfather clauses. Hence, the unraveling of Reconstruction was underway.
But, some reforms took place that challenged the diffusion of congressional accountability to the private sector, as well as the exclusion of white women from voting. The Populist and Progressive movements of the 1890s and early 1900s opposed the influence of private actors on the government, leading to proposals such as direct election of senators, recall, primary elections, and the initiative (Initiative & Referendum Institute). In 1898, South Dakota amended its constitution to provide statewide initiative and referendum processes. The initiative and referendum allowed citizens to collect signatures to place new statutes and veto enacted laws. These measures made legislative decisions directly accountable to citizens, but were mostly implemented in Western states. The Seventeenth Amendment was ratified on April 8, 1913, allowing voters to choose senators, rather than state legislatures. This increased democratic accountability, but also weakened the power of state governments over the federal legislature. In addition, the ratification of the Nineteenth Amendment in 1920 prohibited the federal government from denying women the right to vote. However, women of color were largely still disenfranchised by racial discrimination and intimidation (Tucker). It would take landmark court cases and federal legislation to fully enforce the provisions of the Fourteenth, Fifteenth, and Nineteenth amendments.
Reinterpreting American Democracy
A combination of judicial and legislative victories secured the enforcement of civil rights necessary for democracy. The Guinn v. United States (1915) Supreme Court decision declared that the use of the grandfather clause was unconstitutional in Oklahoma’s Voter Registration Act of 1910. Nevertheless, states—namely Alabama and Virginia—continued to use poll taxes and literacy tests to disenfranchise people of color. Similarly, the landmark decision of the Supreme Court in Smith v. Allwright (a case argued by appellant lawyer Thurgood Marshall in 1944) overturned a Texas state law that permitted the use of the all-white primary election. Subsequently, hundreds of thousands of Black voters were registered to vote in Texas. Litigation from the NAACP (National Association for the Advancement of Colored People) and Legal Defense Fund secured notable victories in the realm of judicial activism, but these methods did not immediately end voter suppression tactics. Rather, it was a combination of lobbying, activism, and litigation that helped pass legislation to protect voting rights. For example, Clarence Mitchell Jr., legislative chairman of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights (LCCR), orchestrated a lobbying coalition of the NAACP, Jewish organizations, and churches to pressure the Kennedy Administration for civil rights legislation (Zampetti). Mitchell and his staff leveraged presidential support while marshalling support on the floor during critical votes, ensuring the passage of the Voting Rights Act. The Voting Rights Act held key provisions, such as , which prohibited devices, including literacy tests, that disenfranchised voters. In addition, the Act required federal oversight of voter registration in areas with a history of discriminatory practices, and authorized the Attorney General to investigate and challenge discriminatory voting practices. Later, the Twenty-Sixth Amendment lowered the required voting age to 18, enabling even more to join the electorate.
Although voting rights were expanding for previously disenfranchised groups, techniques such as gerrymandering and the continued rise of corporate lobbying undermined civic participation. The process of redistricting—states redrawing congressional maps to better reflect their populations—has been manipulated in states like North Carolina to skew voting results towards certain political parties (Li). Notably, the Supreme Court ruled in Rucho v. Common Cause (2019) that gerrymandered maps cannot be challenged in federal courts, which further exacerbates racial discrimination in many cases. On the other hand, the Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010) held that corporate funding of political campaigns cannot be limited under the First Amendment. This decision shifts political accountability towards wealthy campaign donors instead of the people meant to be represented. Even with the gains made in civil rights, special interest groups exert a disproportionate amount of influence on political figures, thereby decreasing the relevance of civic participation.
American Democracy is best understood through the lens of continuous inclusion and exclusion. As demonstrated throughout this study—from the Constitution’s initial limitations to the partial enforcement of Reconstruction amendments, and from Progressive reforms to the Voting Rights Act—moments of democratic expansion have consistently emerged in response to crises that exposed the system’s failures. Yet these gains have rarely been permanent or complete; they are often followed by new mechanisms of disenfranchisement, such as gerrymandering or the increasing influence of wealth in politics.
Footnotes
-
See The Electoral College and the Framers’ Distrust of Democracy for more information on Constitutional debates on the Electoral College. Back ↑
-
Alexander Keyssar notes that by the 1850s, five states—Massachusetts, Vermont, New Hampshire, Maine, and Rhode Island—imposed no racial restrictions on voting. The Right to Vote (2000). Back ↑
-
The Dred Scott decision of 1857 declared that Black people were not citizens of the United States, and thus not entitled to any protections that citizens received. Back ↑