How was a country like the United States created?

By: Ricardo Israel - 22/02/2026

This year the U.S. celebrates the 250th anniversary of its founding, which began on July 4, 1776, with the Declaration of Independence. But in my opinion, the nation we know today is the product of the political process that culminated on September 17, 1787, when the Constitution was signed by the Convention in Philadelphia. It was subsequently ratified on June 21, 1788, and went into effect on March 4, 1789. It remains the oldest written national constitution still in force.

And today, when polarization and division still prevail in the US, it is useful to remember how that nation was created.

If July 4th is Independence Day, it is in the process of drafting the constitution that we find the answer to this column's question: how was such a unique and different country, unlike anything known at the time, created? This is also the reason why it was first a republic, characterized by its institutions, rather than a democracy, since, in retrospect, the original sin of slavery made it difficult for a long time to call it that.

That is why September 17th is celebrated as Constitution Day and Citizenship Day as part of Constitution Week. It is the Constitution's enduring relevance that explains the existence of institutions with the power demonstrated recently by the Supreme Court with its ruling on tariffs, which strikes at the heart of the Trump administration's economic program. The Constitution occupies a special place in the system of checks and balances, far surpassing the traditional separation of powers and the authority of similar judicial institutions around the world.

On September 9, 1776, the Second Continental Congress adopted a new name, and from then on, what had been called the "United Colonies" became known as the United States of America. The Constitution, for its part, has been the supreme law since March 4, 1789. This brief document remains unchanged, with its original seven articles and a 52-word preamble that begins with words never before used in this type of legal instrument: the classic "We the People."

This is how a country like the USA was created, not with the Declaration of Independence or the military triumph over the most powerful army of that time, but with that Constitution still in force.

Was it a revolution made by non-revolutionaries?

Moreover, the American political process from 1776 to 1787 constitutes one of the first revolutions of the modern era and one of the most successful. Every revolution unleashes drama, exile, hatred, and persecution, and the United States was no exception, but the moderation of its leaders is noteworthy. James Madison explained it by his confidence in the now almost forgotten republican virtues: “Just as human nature has something depraved that calls for a certain circumspection and mistrust, it also possesses other qualities that justify a certain esteem and confidence. Republican government presupposes that these qualities should prevail over everything else.”

The implicit presence here of the Puritan idea that a community of individuals, even sinners, can be transformed into a community of good people is undeniable. It is an idea that is difficult to grasp today, but it marked the ethos and eidos of the revolutionary generation, along with—let us not forget—the unresolved issue of slavery, a problem of universal character in the world at that time, something that should also not be forgotten.

But can we speak of a revolution when those who carried it out created a completely unprecedented new political order and died in their beds after peacefully exchanging positions of greatest responsibility? The answer is yes. Perhaps their success lay precisely in that: in their skepticism, their lack of expectations, in a modesty so profound that there was no talk of betrayal or shattered illusions. Not only that, but decades later, their "we the people" slogan, combined with elections at every level and the abolition of slavery, rescued something that, together with the republicanism of institutions, revived a concept that had vanished from the world after its flourishing in Classical Greece, especially in Athens: democracy.

A great historical achievement, but curiously, that generation distrusted it so much that they created a constitution with checks and balances that prevented the occasional tyranny of any majority. The process from independence to the constitution was sufficiently idyllic and devoid of internal conflict that political theory outside the US, with the exception of authors like Alexis de Tocqueville, showed little interest in it. For this reason, even today it is difficult to see Franklin or Washington as revolutionary leaders.

They didn't fit the stereotype. However, this was a great achievement for their leaders, since, due to their origins in protecting religious pluralism, millenarianism and messianism were widespread in the US. It was, therefore, a blessing that this path didn't intersect with politics, and among the drafters of the Constitution, no one suggested that the new republic was a mandate from God to build his kingdom on earth. They were believers, some owned slaves, men, without female representation, as was the case in all equivalent institutions of that historical era, but also—and this was their salvation—they were cultured people, with a deep knowledge of Roman history, what made it great and what brought it down, which would later be reflected in the architecture of Washington as the new capital city.

Therefore, the framers of the constitution introduced few but fundamental changes to the political institutions. They made no attempt to alter social customs. If institutions were reformed, it was to make them more responsive to ordinary people. There was sufficient understanding to recognize that freedoms predated the independence revolution, and no one argued that they had been created by it, since the rebellion had originated to demand participation. The message did not come from the constitution itself, but from the very political and religious tradition that led a group of families to embark on the Mayflower to flee England and cross the Atlantic Ocean.

The search for a single key person or author to explain the Constitution is doomed to failure, given its intellectual roots in the past. It can be aptly described as a successful expression of the Enlightenment. If anything stands out, it is the specific fact that it was an expression of a civic humanism that stemmed primarily from English culture, since we find nothing comparable in either classical antiquity or Renaissance humanism.

The answer lies in English tradition, since nothing was more important to the American constitutionalism of 1787 than the fact that most of the framers had been raised English and, therefore, shared that concern for liberty and for the unique protections then afforded by English common law. It is for this reason, and because of my own studies, that it is painful and upsetting that today the United Kingdom is voluntarily abdicating its responsibility to defend that history and tradition that enriches the very idea of the West.

Despite the England of today, nothing changes what has been said about the U.S., even though Independence and the Constitution arose in opposition to an English king. It was in this sense that the essence of the Revolution consisted of the conversion of the new country and its people to the republicanism of institutions rather than to democracy. Those leaders were liberal aristocrats, and contrary to what was later said, one should not be misled by the fact that, as a historical novelty, voting was implemented to elect representatives at all levels. The truth is that, for the Founding Fathers, democracy as we understand it today was a word that was not well regarded. This may seem surprising because today they seem synonymous, but they are not. For the creators of the U.S., in the latter, the majority rules, but they feared that this majority would be expressed as popular passion. For them, in the republic, the Roman notion of the public interest prevailed, which can (but does not necessarily) imply control of the popular will.

In other words, if a choice must be made, liberty, as the goal of republicanism, must prevail over equality, the goal of democracy. If liberty prevails, representatives will be judged morally, even if society permits what is forbidden or prohibited to them; it is simply that the standard for them must always be higher.

For over two centuries, the United States has sought to merge republican and democratic principles through various means, but the traditions and orientations of the first generation lean more toward the former than the latter. During this time, the Constitution has remained unscathed, guiding the country in this quest. Its enduring relevance stems from two factors: first, its brevity, with the Supreme Court acting more as a constitutional court than a court of strict law—in every respect except name—and second, the difficulty of amending the Constitution. Consequently, it has undergone so few amendments or modifications, with interpretation via judicial rulings being the preferred method of adapting to historical changes to maintain adherence and validity. This is what has allowed the United States to be a democratic republic today, which is by no means a mere play on words.

But to get to where we are today, the political obstacle that had to be overcome from day one was: how to transform the original thirteen states into a single nation?

The Constitutional Convention, which convened in Philadelphia beginning on May 25, 1787, was one of the first national political gatherings. Fifty-five representatives from thirteen states attended, bringing together a group of political and military leaders who would be remembered as successful and influential figures in history.

The significance of their work is best understood when we consider that, strictly speaking, the first U.S. constitution dated from 1781, the year in which the so-called Articles of Confederation were ratified. These articles united thirteen independent entities in matters of defense, commerce, and foreign relations. The Convention's achievement is further comprehensible when we remember that they convened, each representing a sovereign state. It was in this sense that the Articles were understood, seeking nothing more than to resolve conflicts among the states. Therefore, we must appreciate the magnitude of the 1787 constitutional process, given that until the Constitution was achieved, despite the Declaration of Independence and the military victory, the United States as we understand it today had not yet been born. This is reflected in the fact that, at the start of the Convention's deliberations, most delegates considered themselves representatives of independent states, and the concept of a single nation was still unfamiliar.

This is what happened, and it is necessary to emphasize that it was never easy to go against the then dominant idea that states should govern themselves, since the ever-present question was why there was war if all that was achieved was changing the king's rule to that of Congress, an institution that was still little known at the time, especially since, among other reasons, the rebellion had started by arguing that if they were going to pay taxes, they did not want to pay them while they did not have representation in the parliament that then existed in London, in Westminster.

This sentiment was reflected in events such as Rhode Island's refusal to send delegates and New Hampshire's arrival halfway through the deliberations. They joined a group of people who had traveled to amend certain existing Articles, not to write a new Constitution. Presumably, most were politically surprised when Governor Edmund Randolph of Virginia presented a plan for the new national government, drafted by James Madison, which would become known as the Virginia Plan, and which simply entailed the abolition of the Articles.

“New Jersey will never participate in the plan under consideration by the Committee,” declared delegate William Paterson on June 9, “it would be completely devoured.” Both he and his state “would prefer to submit to a monarch, to a despot…than to such a fate.” In this atmosphere of dissolution, Benjamin Franklin proposed on June 28, 1787, seeking divine counsel. However, his proposal to pray was rejected. Hence his doubt about whether the sun painted on Washington’s chair was rising or setting. Only after the text was approved did he feel confident enough to affirm the former.

The questions raised during the debates remain relevant for any society aspiring to pluralism. The answers may vary, but at least one remains key to ensuring a regime of freedoms: How do we control those who control us? The question is not new, given that the Greeks had asked themselves the same thing a couple of millennia earlier. In any case, the answer they found in Philadelphia was appropriate then and remains relevant in the US: “A government where there are mutual checks and balances, so that no one branch exercises supremacy over the others.” This is precisely what the Supreme Court has just reaffirmed in the recent case concerning the Trump administration's tariffs. The Court did not say that the government cannot do what the president wants, but rather that if it wants to exceed the 15% limit set by the applicable law, it must seek congressional approval or other legal authorization.

It is better understood that the United States truly began with the Constitution, given that in the years between 1776 (Declaration of Independence) and 1787, amidst the war, each state minted its own currency, maintained its own military force in the form of militias, and established tariff barriers against allies and neighbors. Furthermore, some threatened military aggression against other states. Therefore, the achievement of the Convention allowed the nascent Republic to have a central government, without it being imposed by force after the British defeat.

In any case, the Constitution emerged during an extremely difficult period, as in 1787 the former colonies were in crisis and life was hard in North America. Furthermore, the states were taxing goods from other states and were not paying taxes to the central government, which was heavily indebted and unable to even secure future funding for the army. Moreover, the British were blockading ports, and the national debt was so high that there was no talk of buying territories; on the contrary, the idea of selling them was being considered. Even Spain, which would later cede Florida, still owned it and made inquiries about purchasing territory in the Carolinas.

That was the United States the year the Constitution was drafted, so it was difficult to imagine the power that this seemingly adrift country would become. In that sense, the new constitution was not a static document, but rather one that possessed strength and flexibility, bringing with it its own stabilizing mechanism.

If the U.S. was able to overcome the difficulties, it was because it discovered the art of political compromise, of seeking consensus, as a way of answering the question: When are countries born?, with a declaration of will or when they show themselves to be viable.

Undoubtedly, the selection of George Washington to lead the deliberations contributed significantly to the Convention's ultimate success, even though he spoke only once, at the very end. It didn't matter; his prestige and presence were crucial in preventing factionalism from taking over. This is how the Convention overcame strong disagreements between federalists and nationalists in each state, as well as between smaller states and larger ones with conflicting interests.

For five weeks, the plenary session debated the details contained in 36 sections outlining what Congress could and could not do. Once these obstacles were overcome, two issues ultimately blocked the way out of the tunnel. First, there was the issue of slavery, an explosive topic already a source of conflict between North and South. A solution could not be found, and the decision was instead postponed, with deadlines set that were never met, laying the groundwork for the Civil War. These deadlines were related to the prohibition of importing slaves and the slave trade.

A second obstacle was how to structure the executive branch of government and where to place the presidency. Faced with the difficulty of reaching an agreement, the delegates appointed a commission that, in four days, produced the formula that has remained in place to this day. According to this formula, the President would be elected by electors from each state, the number of whom would be equal to the state's representation in Congress. This is precisely the same formula by which Americans continue to select their leaders, and it explains why the method preferred by most democracies—one person, one vote—has never been used, and instead, a 538-member Electoral College is still employed. This also explains why the U.S. does not have a single electoral system, but rather 51: one for each of the 50 states and one for the capital, the District of Columbia.

The final stage was reached on Saturday, September 15, 1787, and the delegates met on Monday the 17th for the signing. On June 21, 1783, the nine required states had ratified the Constitution, making it law. Within the next three years, the groundbreaking Bill of Rights was added, which proved crucial for the freedoms that have characterized the country, with the obvious exception of slavery.

Rarely in history had such a peaceful change been achieved in such a short time. The framework and structure of the Republic were already in place, with a president elected every four years, a Congress vested with budgetary powers to finance the government, and a Judiciary entrusted with the final say on the rule of law. However, the original sin remained, as one issue was so sensitive that the delegates avoided it. The words "slaves" or "slavery" would not appear in the new Constitution; delegations like that of South Carolina were fervent supporters of the slave system, and only concessions from the northern states prevented conflict. Moreover, the issue remained so unresolved that it is necessary to remember that when the Civil War began, Abraham Lincoln called for fighting in the name of the "Union," and only at the very end did the emancipation of the slaves come.

With the Constitution, the crisis became a distant memory, thus culminating the American Revolution, giving an answer to Washington's question in 1783 of whether it "had been a blessing or a curse," and finally it could be said that the Republic, the Union, and the Nation would not only survive, but prosper, giving rise to a new political creation destined to make history.

@israelzipper

Master's and PhD in Political Science (University of Essex), Bachelor of Laws (University of Barcelona), Lawyer (University of Chile), former presidential candidate (Chile, 2013)

«The opinions published herein are the sole responsibility of its author».