Shays' Rebellion, Constitution, and Ratification

Shays’ Rebellion

Occurred in the summer of 1786 in western Massachusetts.
Farmers were heavily in debt and faced imprisonment and loss of land.
They owed taxes that were unpaid while they fought the British during the Revolution.
The Continental Congress had promised to pay them for their service, but the national government lacked sufficient funds.
Farmers were unable to meet the new tax burden imposed by Massachusetts to pay its own debts from the Revolution.
Led by Daniel Shays, the farmers marched to a local courthouse demanding relief.
Governor James Bowdoin requested aid from the national government, but none was available.
The uprising was ended the following year by a privately funded militia after an unsuccessful attempt to raid the Springfield Armory.
Raises questions about the justification of the attacks on the government of Massachusetts, and what rights the rebels might have sought to protect.

The Development of the Constitution

In 1786, Virginia and Maryland invited delegates from the other eleven states to meet in Annapolis, Maryland, to revise the Articles of Confederation.
Only five states sent representatives, and because all thirteen states had to agree to any alteration of the Articles, the convention in Annapolis could not accomplish its goal.
Alexander Hamilton and James Madison requested that all states send delegates to a convention in Philadelphia the following year to revise the Articles of Confederation again.
All states except Rhode Island sent delegates to the meeting.
The convention in Philadelphia in 1787 decided to create an entirely new government because the shortcomings of the Articles of Confederation proved impossible to overcome.

Points of Contention at the Constitutional Convention (May 1787, Philadelphia)

Delegates wanted to strengthen the national government but feared creating one that was too powerful.
They wished to preserve state autonomy but also wanted the states to work together collectively.
They sought to protect individual rights from government abuse while maintaining law and order.
They wished to give political rights to all free men but feared mob rule.
Delegates from small states did not want their interests pushed aside by more populous states.
Everyone was concerned about slavery.
Representatives from southern states worried that delegates from states where slavery had been or was being abolished might try to outlaw the institution.
Those who favored a nation free of slavery feared that southerners might attempt to make it a permanent part of American society.
The only decision that all could agree on was the election of George Washington as the president of the convention.

The Question of Representation: Small States vs. Large States

A difference emerged between delegates from large states (New York, Virginia) and small states (Delaware).
The Virginia Plan called for a bicameral legislature (two houses) with representation based on the state’s population in each house.
Representatives in the lower house would be elected by popular vote and would then select their state’s representatives in the upper house from among candidates proposed by the state’s legislature.
Delegates from small states objected to the Virginia Plan.
The New Jersey Plan called for a unicameral legislature (one house) with each state having one vote.
Smaller states would have the same power in the national legislature as larger states.
Larger states argued that they should be allotted more legislators to represent their interests due to their larger populations.

Slavery and Freedom

A fundamental division separated the states.
Some northern states had abolished slavery or instituted plans for gradual emancipation following the Revolution.
Pennsylvania, for example, had passed the Act for the Gradual Abolition of Slavery in 1780 where people born in the state to enslaved mothers after the law’s passage would become indentured servants to be set free at age twenty-eight.
In 1783, Massachusetts had freed all enslaved people within the state.
Many Americans believed slavery was opposed to the ideals stated in the Declaration of Independence and inconsistent with the teachings of Christianity.
Some feared for the safety of the country’s white population if the number of slaves and white Americans’ reliance on them increased.
None of the southern states had abolished slavery and none wanted the Constitution to interfere with the institution.
Slaves supported the agriculture of the South, could be taxed as property, and counted as population for purposes of a state’s representation in the government.

Federal Supremacy vs. State Sovereignty

The greatest division among the states split those who favored a strong national government and those who favored limiting its powers and allowing states to govern themselves in most matters.
Supporters of a strong central government argued that it was necessary for the survival and efficient functioning of the new nation.
Without the authority to maintain and command an army and navy, the nation could not defend itself when European powers still maintained formidable empires in North America.
Without the power to tax and regulate trade, the government would not have enough money to maintain the nation’s defense, protect American farmers and manufacturers from foreign competition, create infrastructure, maintain foreign embassies, or pay federal judges and other government officials.
Other countries would be reluctant to loan money to the United States if the federal government lacked the ability to impose taxes to repay its debts.
The Virginia Plan favored a strong national government that would legislate for the states in many areas and would have the power to veto laws passed by state legislatures.
Others feared that a strong national government might become too powerful and use its authority to oppress citizens and deprive them of their rights.
They advocated a central government with sufficient authority to defend the nation but insisted that other powers be left to the states, which were believed to be better able to understand and protect the needs and interests of their residents.
Delegates in favor of states rights approved the approach of the New Jersey Plan, which retained the unicameral Congress that had existed under the Articles of Confederation.
It gave additional power to the national government, such as the power to regulate interstate and foreign commerce and to compel states to comply with laws passed by Congress.
States still retained a lot of power, including power over the national government.
Congress could not impose taxes without the consent of the states.
The nation’s chief executive, appointed by the Congress, could be removed by Congress if state governors demanded it.

Individual Liberty vs. Social Stability

The belief that the king and Parliament had deprived colonists of their liberties had led to the Revolution, and many feared the government of the United States might one day attempt to do the same.
They wanted and expected their new government to guarantee the rights of life, liberty, and property.
Others believed it was more important for the national government to maintain order, and this might require it to limit personal liberty at times.
All Americans, however, desired that the government not intrude upon people’s rights to life, liberty, and property without reason.

Compromise and the Constitutional Design of American Government

Beginning in May 1787, delegations from twelve states discussed, debated, and compromised to create a new blueprint for the nation by September.
The U.S. Constitution allayed fears of a too-powerful central government and solved the problems that had beleaguered the national government under the Articles of Confederation.
It also resolved the conflicts between small and large states, northern and southern states, and those who favored a strong federal government and those who argued for state sovereignty.
The closest thing to minutes of the Constitutional Convention is the collection of James Madison’s letters and notes.

The Great Compromise

The Constitution consists of a preamble and seven articles.
The first three articles divide the national government into three branches—Congress, the executive branch, and the federal judiciary—and describe the powers and responsibilities of each.
Article I describes the structure of Congress, the basis for representation, the requirements for serving in Congress, the length of Congressional terms, and the powers of Congress.
The national legislature created by the article reflects the compromises reached by the delegates regarding such issues as representation, slavery, and national power.
After debating at length, the framers of the Constitution arrived at the Great Compromise, suggested by Roger Sherman of Connecticut.
Congress would consist of two chambers: the Senate and the House of Representatives.
Each state, regardless of size, would have two senators, making for equal representation as in the New Jersey Plan.
Representation in the House would be based on population.
Senators were to be appointed by state legislatures, a variation on the Virginia Plan.
Members of the House of Representatives would be popularly elected by the voters in each state.
Elected members of the House would be limited to two years in office before having to seek reelection, and those appointed to the Senate by each state’s political elite would serve a term of six years.
Congress was given great power, including the power to tax, maintain an army and a navy, and regulate trade and commerce.
Congress had authority that the national government lacked under the Articles of Confederation, to coin and borrow money, grant patents and copyrights, declare war, and establish laws regulating naturalization and bankruptcy.
Legislation could be proposed by either chamber of Congress, but it had to pass both chambers by a majority vote before being sent to the president to be signed into law.
All bills to raise revenue had to begin in the House of Representatives.
There would be no more taxation without representation.

The Three-Fifths Compromise and the Debates over Slavery

The Great Compromise led to another debate: whether slaves should be counted when states took a census of their population for the purpose of allotting House representatives.
Southern states were adamant that they should be, while delegates from northern states were vehemently opposed, arguing that representatives from southern states could not represent the interests of enslaved people.
If slaves were not counted, southern states would have far fewer representatives in the House than northern states did.
The Three-Fifths Compromise resolved the impasse.
For purposes of Congressional apportionment, slaveholding states were allowed to count all their free population, including free African Americans and 60 percent (three-fifths) of their enslaved population.
To mollify the north, the compromise also allowed counting 60 percent of a state’s slave population for federal taxation, although no such taxes were ever collected.
Another compromise regarding the institution of slavery granted Congress the right to impose taxes on imports in exchange for a twenty-year prohibition on laws attempting to ban the importation of slaves to the United States.
No serious effort was made by the framers to abolish slavery in the new nation, even though many delegates disapproved of the institution.
The Constitution contained two protections for slavery in Article I: postponed the abolition of the foreign slave trade until 1808, and in the interim, those in slaveholding states were allowed to import as many slaves as they wished.
The Constitution placed no restrictions on the domestic slave trade, so residents of one state could still sell enslaved people to other states.
Article IV of the Constitution prevented slaves from gaining their freedom by escaping to states where slavery had been abolished.
Clause 3 of Article IV allowed slave owners to reclaim their human property in the states where slaves had fled.

Separation of Powers and Checks and Balances

The chief concern was the challenge of increasing the authority of the national government while ensuring that it did not become too powerful.
The framers resolved this problem through a separation of powers, dividing the national government into three separate branches and assigning different responsibilities to each one.
They also created a system of checks and balances by giving each of three branches of government the power to restrict the actions of the others, thus requiring them to work together.
Congress was given the power to make laws, but the executive branch, consisting of the president and the vice president, and the federal judiciary, notably the Supreme Court, were created to enforce laws and try cases arising under federal law.
Neither of these branches had existed under the Articles of Confederation.
Congress can pass laws, but its power to do so can be checked by the president, who can veto potential legislation so that it cannot become a law.
In the 1803 case of Marbury v. Madison, the U.S. Supreme Court established its own authority to rule on the constitutionality of laws, a process called judicial review.
Other examples of checks and balances include the ability of Congress to limit the president’s veto.
If the president vetoes a bill passed by both houses of Congress, the bill is returned to Congress to be voted on again.
If the bill passes both the House of Representatives and the Senate with a two-thirds vote in its favor, it becomes law even though the president has refused to sign it.
Congress is also able to limit the president’s power as commander-in-chief of the armed forces by refusing to declare war or provide funds for the military.
The president must also seek the advice and consent of the Senate before appointing members of the Supreme Court and ambassadors, and the Senate must approve the ratification of all treaties signed by the president.
Congress may even remove the president from office through impeachment by the House of Representatives and trial by the Senate.
According to political scientist Richard Neustadt, the system of separation of powers and checks and balances does not so much allow one part of government to control another as it encourages the branches to cooperate.
The Constitutional Convention “created a government of separated institutions sharing powers.”
Knowing the president can veto a law he or she disapproves, Congress will attempt to draft a bill that addresses the president’s concerns before sending it to the White House for signing.
Knowing that Congress can override a veto, the president will use this power sparingly.

Federal Power vs. State Power

The strongest guarantee that the power of the national government would be restricted and the states would retain a degree of sovereignty was the framers’ creation of a federal system of government.
In a federal system, power is divided between the federal (or national) government and the state governments.
Great or explicit powers, called enumerated powers, were granted to the federal government to declare war, impose taxes, coin and regulate currency, regulate foreign and interstate commerce, raise and maintain an army and a navy, maintain a post office, make treaties with foreign nations and with Native American tribes, and make laws regulating the naturalization of immigrants.
All powers not expressly given to the national government, however, were intended to be exercised by the states, and these powers are known as reserved powers.
States remained free to pass laws regarding such things as intrastate commerce (commerce within the borders of a state) and marriage.
Some powers, such as the right to levy taxes, were given to both the state and federal governments.
Both the states and the federal government have a chief executive to enforce the laws (a governor and the president, respectively) and a system of courts.
Although the states retained a considerable degree of sovereignty, the supremacy clause in Article VI of the Constitution proclaimed that the Constitution, laws passed by Congress, and treaties made by the federal government were “the supreme Law of the Land.”
In the event of a conflict between the states and the national government, the national government would triumph.
Although the federal government was to be limited to those powers enumerated in the Constitution, Article I provided for the expansion of Congressional powers if needed.
The “necessary and proper” clause of Article I provides that Congress may “make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing [enumerated] Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.”
The Constitution also gave the federal government control over all “Territory or other Property belonging to the United States.”
This would prove problematic when the federal government sought to restrict the expansion of slavery into newly acquired territories.

The Ratification of the Constitution

On September 17, 1787, the delegates to the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia voted to approve the document they had drafted.
Before it could become the law of the land, however, the Constitution faced another hurdle: It had to be ratified by the states.

The Ratification Process

Article VII required that the Constitution be ratified by nine of the thirteen states before it could become law.
Copies of the Constitution were sent to each of the states, which were to hold ratifying conventions to either accept or reject it.
By calling upon state legislatures to hold ratification conventions to approve the Constitution, the framers avoided asking the legislators to approve a document that would require them to give up a degree of their own power.
The men attending the ratification conventions would be delegates elected by their neighbors to represent their interests.
Finally, because the new nation was to be a republic in which power was held by the people through their elected representatives, it was considered appropriate to leave the ultimate acceptance or rejection of the Constitution to the nation’s citizens.
The greatest sticking point was the relative power of the state and federal governments.
Many people resisted increasing the powers of the national government at the expense of the states.
Virginia’s Patrick Henry, for example, feared that the newly created office of president would place excessive power in the hands of one man and disapproved of the federal government’s new ability to tax its citizens.
Other delegates, such as Edmund Randolph of Virginia, disapproved of the Constitution because it created a new federal judicial system.
State courts were located closer to the homes of both plaintiffs and defendants, and it was believed that judges and juries in state courts could better understand the actions of those who appeared before them.
In response to these fears, the federal government created federal courts in each of the states as well as in Maine and Kentucky.
Perhaps the greatest source of dissatisfaction with the Constitution was that it did not guarantee protection of individual liberties.
This led many of the Constitution’s opponents to call for a bill of rights and the refusal to ratify the document without one.
The promise that a bill of rights would be drafted for the Constitution persuaded delegates in many states to support ratification.
Smaller states, like Delaware, favored the Constitution because equal representation in the Senate would give them a degree of equality with the larger states, and a strong national government with an army at its command would be better able to defend them than their state militias could.
Larger states, however, had significant power to lose and did not believe they needed the federal government to defend them and disliked the prospect of having to provide tax money to support the new government.
The supporters of the Constitution feared that New York, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, and Virginia would refuse to ratify it.

The Ratification Campaign

Citizens quickly separated into two groups: Federalists and Anti-Federalists.
The Federalists supported it and tended to be among the elite members of society who believed a strong government would be better for both national defense and economic growth.
Support for the Federalists was especially strong in New England.
Opponents of ratification were called Anti-Federalists, feared the power of the national government, and believed state legislatures could better protect their freedoms.
Although some Anti-Federalists were wealthy, most distrusted the elite and believed a strong federal government would favor the rich.
Even members of the social elite, like Henry, feared that the centralization of power would lead to the creation of a political aristocracy, to the detriment of state sovereignty and individual liberty.
Related to these concerns were fears that the strong central government Federalists advocated for would levy taxes on farmers and planters, who lacked the hard currency needed to pay them.
Anti-Federalist sentiment was especially strong in the South.
Some Anti-Federalists also believed that the large federal republic that the Constitution would create could not work as intended.
Americans had long believed that virtue was necessary in a nation where people governed themselves.
The Constitution contained no provisions for government support of churches or of religious education, and Article VI explicitly forbade the use of religious tests to determine eligibility for public office.
The Federalist position tended to win support among businessmen, large farmers, and, in the South, plantation owners.
In some states, like Virginia and South Carolina, small farmers who may have favored the Anti-Federalist position were unable to elect as many delegates to state ratification conventions as those who lived in the east.
Educated men authored pamphlets and published essays and cartoons arguing either for or against ratification.
Federalist essays are now best known with arguments and guarantees that amendments would be added to protect individual liberties, helped to sway delegates to ratification conventions in many states.
Smaller, less populous states favored the Constitution and the protection of a strong federal government.
Some of the larger states, such as Pennsylvania and Massachusetts, also voted in favor of the new government. New Hampshire became the ninth state to ratify the Constitution in the summer of 1788.
In Virginia, James Madison’s active support and the intercession of George Washington changed the minds of many.
On June 25, 1788, Virginia became the tenth state to grant its approval.
Facing considerable opposition to the Constitution in that state, Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay wrote a series of essays, beginning in 1787, arguing for a strong federal government and support of the Constitution.
Later compiled as The Federalist Papers, these eighty-five essays were originally published in newspapers in New York and other states under the name of Publius, a supporter of the Roman Republic.
The essays addressed a variety of issues that troubled citizens.
In Federalist No. 51, Madison assured readers they did not need to fear that the national government would grow too powerful.
The federal system and the division of authority within the federal government into separate branches would prevent any one part of the government from becoming too strong.
The desire of office holders in each branch of government to exercise the powers given to them would encourage them to limit any attempt by the other branches to overstep their authority.
In Federalist No. 35, Hamilton argued that people’s interests could in fact be represented by men who were not their neighbors.
Jay reminded New Yorkers in Federalist No. 2 that union had been the goal of Americans since the time of the Revolution.
Objections that an elite group of wealthy and educated bankers, businessmen, and large landowners would come to dominate the nation’s politics were also addressed by Madison in Federalist No. 10.
In Federalist No. 68, Hamilton provided assurance that placing the leadership of the country in the hands of one person was not dangerous.
In Federalist No. 70, Hamilton argued that instead of being afraid that the president would become a tyrant, Americans should realize that it was easier to control one person than it was to control many.
The Anti-Federalists also produced a body of writings, less extensive than The Federalists Papers, which argued against the ratification of the Constitution.
Once Virginia ratified the Constitution on June 25, 1788, New York realized that it had little choice but to do so as well.
On July 26, 1788, the majority of delegates to New York’s ratification convention voted to accept the Constitution.
A year later, North Carolina became the twelfth state to approve.
Realizing it could not hope to survive on its own, Rhode Island became the last state to ratify.

Term Limits

One of the objections raised to the Constitution’s new government was that it did not set term limits for members of Congress or the president.
Those who opposed a strong central government argued that this failure could allow a handful of powerful men to gain control of the nation and rule it for as long as they wished.
Those who supported the Constitution argued that reelecting the president and reappointing senators by state legislatures would create a body of experienced men who could better guide the country through crises.
In 1951, after Franklin Roosevelt had been elected four times, the Twenty-Second Amendment was passed to restrict the presidency to two terms.

Constitutional Change

A major problem with the Articles of Confederation had been the nation’s inability to change them without the unanimous consent of all the states.
One of the strengths they built into the Constitution was the ability to amend it to meet the nation’s needs, reflect the changing times, and address concerns or structural elements they had not anticipated.

The Amendment Process

Since ratification in 1789, the Constitution has been amended only twenty-seven times.
The first ten amendments were added in 1791, known as the Bill of Rights.
Responding to charges by Anti-Federalists that the Constitution made the national government too powerful and provided no protections for the rights of individuals, the newly elected federal government tackled the issue of guaranteeing liberties for American citizens.
James Madison drafted nineteen potential changes to the Constitution, following the procedure outlined in Article V.
Amendments can originate from one of two sources:
- Proposed by Congress, then approved by a two-thirds majority in both the House and the Senate before being sent to the legislatures in all the states. If three-quarters of state legislatures vote to approve an amendment, it becomes part of the Constitution.
- Petitioning of Congress by the states: Upon receiving such petitions from two-thirds of the states, Congress must call a convention for the purpose of proposing amendments, which would then be forwarded to the states for ratification by the required three-quarters.
All the current constitutional amendments were created using the first method.
Having drafted nineteen proposed amendments, Madison submitted them to Congress.
Only twelve were approved by two-thirds of both the Senate and the House of Representatives and sent to the states for