Just Like Kansas City?
In 1940 Senator Kenneth Wherry of Nebraska soberly exclaimed: “With God’s help, we will lift Shanghai up and up, ever up, until it is just like Kansas City.” (At the time, Shanghai was brutally occupied by Japanese forces, which, a year later, would attack the United States at Pearl Harbor.) Like many Americans before and since, Wherry assumed that the American system of government could be transplanted almost anywhere in the world. After invading Iraq in 2003, the United States created a constitution there that was based on democratic principles, such as free elections. Soon thereafter, Iraq was awash in violence as a result of religious, ethnic, and tribal divisions. Do you think true democracy can take root in countries with a tradition of authoritarian rule or where the population is deeply divided along religious, ethnic, or tribal lines?
APPLYING THE ELEMENTS OF CRITICAL THINKING
Page 24
Conceptualizing: Distinguish between political power (generally) and authority (as a special kind of political power).
Synthesizing: Contrast the American political culture with that of most Western democracies. What in the American experience has led its people to derive their national identity from a set of shared political ideals?
Analyzing: Explain the types of power that result from each of America’s major systems of governing—democracy, constitutionalism, and a free market.
SECTION 2 American History
Page 33
Political Thinking In Conflict
Fight over Ratification of the Constitution
The intense partisanship that typifies today’s politics also marked the debate over the Constitution’s ratification. Angry exchanges took place between proponents of a stronger national government and those arguing for a state-centered union. Although the pro-Constitution side won easily in most states, the balloting in New York and Virginia was so close that it took the promise of a Bill of Rights to secure the votes for ratification. North Carolina and Rhode Island (the latter had refused even to send delegates to the Philadelphia Convention) initially rejected the Constitution, ratifying it only after the other states began to form a union without them. Here is the breakdown of the ratifying vote in each state:
State Date of Ratification Vote Totals
Delaware December 12, 1787 46 for, 23 against
Pennsylvania December 17, 1787 30 for, 0 against
New Jersey December 18, 1787 38 for, 0 against
Georgia January 2, 1788 26 for, 0 against
Connecticut January 9, 1788 128 for, 40 against
Massachusetts February 6, 1788 187 for, 168 against
Maryland April 28, 1788 63 for, 11 against
South Carolina May 23, 1788 149 for, 73 against
New Hampshire June 21, 1788 57 for, 47 against
Virginia June 25, 1788 89 for, 79 against
New York July 26, 1788 30 for, 27 against
North Carolina November 21, 1789 194 for, 77 against
Rhode Island May 29, 1790 34 for, 32 against
Q: If historians are correct in concluding that the American public as a whole was evenly split over ratification of the Constitution, why might the pro-Constitution side have prevailed in so many states and so easily in some states?
A: State and local governments were in charge of selecting the delegates to the state ratifying conventions. For the most part, they chose prominent leaders to serve as delegates, with the result that wealthy merchants, large landholders, and top public officials dominated the conventions. These groups were more supportive of the Constitution than were other groups, including small farmers, craftspeople, and shopkeepers.
PAGE 58
APPLYING THE ELEMENTS OF CRITICAL THINKING
Conceptualizing: Define the concept of judicial review. How does a court decision involving judicial review differ from an ordinary court decision, such as a ruling in a case involving armed robbery?
Synthesizing: Contrast the original system for electing federal officials with the system of today, noting in each case whether voters have acquired a more direct voice in the election process than was originally the case.
Analyzing: Why is it more accurate to say that the United States has a system of “separated institutions sharing power” rather than a system of “separated powers”? Provide examples of how shared power can act to check and balance the power of each institution.
Sample Solution
