The Spirit of American Government A Study Of The Constitution: Its Origin, Influence And Relation To Democracy — A Reader’s Guide

The Framers' Intent and the Suffrage Gap

Smith insists that the Constitution was never intended to embody majority rule. He points to the property qualifications for voting and office-holding that persisted after ratification, noting that “the majority was outside of the pale of political rights” in the eighteenth century. The extension of the suffrage in the nineteenth century, he argues, was a concession to democratic sentiment, but it did not give the masses effective control because the Constitution's checks remained. Smith observes that this gap between formal voting rights and actual power led many to mistakenly believe that majority opinion was a “controlling factor in national politics.” The book's language is precise: Smith uses terms like “effective and recognized minority control” to describe the framers' design, and he repeatedly contrasts the ideal of democracy with the reality of constitutional limits.

The Constitution as a Political Myth

A central thread in Smith's argument is that the Constitution came to be revered as democratic, even though it was not. He traces how early distrust gave way to veneration, as political leaders “represented” the document as the embodiment of the Declaration of Independence. Smith cites party platforms from 1840 to 1900 to show how both Democrats and Republicans claimed the Constitution enshrined Jeffersonian principles. He notes that the Democratic platform of 1840 resolved that the “liberal principles embodied by Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence, and sanctioned in the Constitution” were cardinal to the party's faith—a claim Smith treats as a political convenience. The Republican platform of 1856 similarly asserted that the Declaration's principles were “embodied in the Federal Constitution.” Smith's method is to let these platforms speak for themselves, juxtaposing them with the Constitution's actual provisions to highlight the discrepancy.

Parties, Platforms, and Judicial Power

Smith examines how both major parties avoided challenging the judiciary's authority, even when it blocked popular reforms. He notes that the Democratic party in 1896 condemned “government by injunction” and the Income Tax decision, but neither party ever took a stand against the judiciary's broader power. On economic issues, Smith points to shifting party positions: Democrats favored free silver in 1896 and 1900, while Republicans moved from endorsing bimetallism to the gold standard. He observes that neither party advocated for an income tax, government ownership of railroads, or direct election of senators (except a Democratic platform declaration). Smith's tone is analytical rather than polemical; he presents these inconsistencies as evidence that the constitutional system, not just partisan politics, constrained democratic outcomes. The book's structure moves from historical analysis to contemporary critique, always grounding its claims in specific constitutional features.

Smith's study rewards readers who attend to his careful distinctions between democratic ideals and constitutional mechanics. He does not argue that the Constitution should be abandoned, but that its origins and effects must be understood honestly. The book's value lies in its willingness to examine sacred political texts as products of their time, and to ask whether they still serve the purposes claimed for them. Readers should watch for Smith's use of party platforms as primary evidence—a method that gives his critique a documentary foundation.

The rain kept me indoors with J. Allen Smith’s old argument, his quiet insistence that our founding charter distrusted the crowd. That unease lingered at dusk. I set it down, and found myself pulling The conscience of a Conservative — Story, Setting & Ideas from the shelf, half-formed, as if answering a letter from another century.