The Ratification of the US Constitution and the Federalist-Anti-Federalist Debates
The Conclusion of the Convention and the Republican Challenge
The Constitutional Convention adjourned at the end of the summer in .
A famous anecdote involves Benjamin Franklin being asked by a woman, "What do we have in there, Dr. Franklin? A republic or a monarchy?"
Franklin’s response was: "A republic, ma'am, if you can keep it."
While a group of men spent the summer debating and hashing out issues to create the document, presenting it to the country to secure buy-in was a separate, more difficult challenge.
The Constitution is described as one large compromise among many intelligent people, not all of whom were satisfied with the final result.
Dissenting Perspectives and Misgivings
George Washington: He did not leave the convention entirely happy, viewing the document as "less than stellar." He would have preferred a more centralized government.
Alexander Hamilton: He shared a similar sentiment to Washington, favoring more centralized power.
Samuel Adams: He expressed immediate skepticism, stating, "As I enter the building, I stumble at the threshold." He did not understand the document after reading the first sentence.
Patrick Henry: He was particularly upset by the first three words of the preamble, "We the People."
He questioned: "Who authorized them to speak the language of 'We the People' instead of 'We the State'?"
He argued that states are the defining characteristics and should be the basis of the confederation.
He warned that the "tyranny of Philadelphia may be like the tyranny of George the Third."
If public opinion polling had existed in the s, it is suggested that most people likely would have found the Articles of Confederation to be sufficient.
Federalism versus Nationalism
A central question of the convention was how to divide power between the national government and the states.
Federalism: Defined as an important compromise suggesting that states and the federal government share power and sovereignty.
Nationalism: Described as a "scary proposition" that would vest all power in the nation at the expense of the states.
Opponents of the Constitution feared that the document was nationalistic rather than federalist.
The naming convention was a point of contention:
Those supporting the Constitution called themselves "Federalists."
Those opposing it became known as "Anti-Federalists" because the proponents secured the "Federalist" label first.
The Anti-Federalists would have argued they were the "true federalists," as they believed the Constitution threw the balance of power out of whack in favor of nationalism.
Anti-Federalist Concerns and Criticisms
Placement of Power: Critics were concerned with whether the balance between state and federal government was correct or swung too far toward a national government.
Standing Army: There was fear that the Constitution would allow for the creation of a permanent standing army.
Aristocratic Oppression: Localists in state governments feared that an aristocracy would oppress the common man.
Economic Interpretation: Some viewed the convention as a gathering of rich men who created a government to protect their own interests.
This is famously associated with a historian (Charles Beard, though unnamed in the transcript) who wrote An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution.
Lack of Representation: There was an overarching fear of having no voice in the new government and suffering under a lack of representation.
Tyranny: One Anti-Federalist called the proposed government "the most odious system of tyranny that was ever projected."
Federalist Strategy and The Federalist Papers
The Federalists were successful in pushing for ratification because they were "national minded" and organized a superior national publicity campaign.
The Federalist Essays (The Federalist Papers):
A series of essays mostly written by Alexander Hamilton, with contributions from James Madison and John Jay.
They were published in New York newspapers between October and May .
These essays explained every aspect and clause of the Constitution, defending it against any attack from the Anti-Federalists.
Major themes included the benefits of federalism (sharing of power) and defending specific provisions, such as why judges are given lifetime appointments.
The Federalists performed a "hatchet job" on the Articles of Confederation, arguing that anything would be better than the existing system.
The Anti-Federalists failed to suggest a viable alternative government or form their own convention; they were perceived as merely criticizing from the sidelines.
The Debate over a Bill of Rights
The demand for a Bill of Rights became the "calling card" for the Anti-Federalists.
Federalist Objections: They initially felt a Bill of Rights was unnecessary for several reasons:
Checks and balances, government by election, enumerated powers, and federalism already acted as guarantees of rights.
If accountability exists at the ballot box and branches check each other, explicit writing is redundant.
They feared that writing things down could be dangerous, as certain rights might be erased or the list might be perceived as exhaustive, leaving out implied rights.
Anti-Federalist Stance: They argued that every state had a declaration of rights and that writing them down was essential for making citizens aware of their protections.
The Compromise: James Madison eventually conceded that if the Anti-Federalists supported the Constitution, the first Congress would enact a Bill of Rights as its first order of business. This concession broke the stalemate in many states.
The Ratification Process
Ratification did not occur through state legislatures, which would have been like the government writing rules for itself.
Instead, separate ratification conventions were assembled in each state.
Delegates were sent to these conventions to vote on the acceptance of the new document.
The requirement for the Constitution to become law was ratification by a majority of out of the states.
On June , , New Hampshire became the th state to ratify, allowing the Constitution to go into effect.
Assessing the National Debate of
The vigorous debate showed there was no true consensus on what type of government the United States should have (strong national vs. weak national vs. confederacy).
Public Agreement: There was one area of broad agreement: government should be based on the "consent of the people."
A remarkable aspect of the ratification was that despite the lack of consensus, the Anti-Federalists did not secede or try to start an alternative government; they chose to work within the new system to seek changes.
Innovation in Sovereignty: The founders achieved something the British could not—placing sovereignty in more than one place.
By starting with "We the People," they placed sovereignty within the populace.
The people then distributed that sovereignty out to the national government, the state governments, or reserved it for themselves.
The American Experiment: Federalist No. 1
The founding generation viewed the Constitution as an "experiment."
In Federalist No. 1, Alexander Hamilton wrote:
"It has been frequently remarked that it seems to have been reserved to the people of this country, by their conduct and example, to decide the important question, whether societies of men are really capable or not of establishing good government from reflection and choice, or whether they are forever destined to depend for their political constitutions on accident and force."
Hamilton warned that a "wrong election" at this crisis would be a "general misfortune of mankind."
The success of the republic was not guaranteed upon ratification; it remained up to the leaders and the citizenry to prove that people could govern themselves.