The Freeman 1972 - The Ludwig von Mises Institute

698 THE FREEMAN Novembershould be chosen than any other,though it did not excite the emotionsthe way the matter of whetherrepresentation in Congressshould be based on population orby states did.Above all, there was the questionof how those who were togovern could be made sufficientlyindependent of their electors tomake wise· decisions without posingfatal dangers to the libertiesof the people. Undoubtedly, if thegovernment was to be republicanit must be based on voters fromamong the people. Nor, as som.emen never tired of saying, was itto be doubted that those whoserights were involved were the bestprotectors of them or that theballot box was the place to do it.Some thought that frequent electionswould be the best means· ofprotecting the people. Roger Shermanobserved that "Governmentis instituted for those who liveunder it. It ought therefore to beso constituted as not to be dangerousto their liberties. The morepermanency it has the worse if itbe a bad Government. Frequentelections are necessary to preservethe good behavior of rulers."27Others questioned this principle,for they noted that a too close dependenceof the government on thepeople resulted not in wise andstable government but in the panderingof politicians to the temporaryand changing opinions of thepopulace. Madison had said justprior to Sherman's remarks thatthe objective of the constitutionwas "first to protect the peopleagainst their rulers; secondly toprotect the people against thetransient impressions into whichthey themselves might be led...."A "reflection . . . becoming a people... would be that they themselves. . . were liable to err . . .from fickleness and passion."28Alexander Hamilton pointed outthat lately "the Government hadentirely given way to the people,and had in fact suspended manyof its ordinary functions in orderto prevent those turbulent sceneswhich had appeared elsewhere."29Principles Not CompromisedPerhaps, enough of the difficultieshave been recounted to illustratethe fact that the Founderswere wrestling with real practicaland intellectual problems at theconvention. Some twentieth centuryhistorians have attempted tointerpret their differences in termsof class interests and other factors.It is not necessary to do thisin order to account for the debates;it also drags in matters extraneousto the subjects at issue. Moreover,such an account does not explainthe compromises that were eventuallymade; if men were movedonly by narrow interests they