The story of the ratification of the Constitution of the United States.
In September 1787, two days after the Constitutional Convention adjourned and the delegates went their separate ways, a newspaper called the Philadelphia Packet published the Constitution over four of its pages. The men in Philadelphia, who had been meeting in secret since the end of May 1787, published their final product for all Americans to see. The Convention delegates included an appeal to those reading the document, “That [the Constitution] may promote the lasting welfare of that country so dear to us all, and secure her freedom and happiness, is our most ardent wish.” The final letter was signed by George Washington and contained the words “By the unanimous order of the Convention” underneath his signature.
The debate over the Constitution would not see all thirteen original states ratify the document until Rhode Island did so in May 1790. For Americans who only knew a lifetime of monarchy and then a unicameral legislature where each state got one vote, the three-branch federal system proposed by the Convention delegates produced a mixed reaction that included confusion, skepticism, and even anger. The debates over its ratification were intense.
Many prominent Founding Fathers offered their opinion of the proposed structure of the new government. The debate included some of the best writings on American government ever produced. Both the Federalist Papers that began to appear in October 1787 and in what became known as the Anti-Federalist Papers that appeared in opposition, both sides made their cases for and against the Constitution.
The Federalist Papers
On October 27, 1787, the first of what became eighty-five essays was published in New York newspapers. Written under the pseudonym “Publius,” a Roman leader known for his love of the people, the essays urged the states to ratify the Constitution. The collective essays became known as The Federalist and, ultimately, The Federalist Papers and remain the go-to source for an explanation of the principles of American government.
It was later learned that of the eighty-five essays, fifty-one were written by Alexander Hamilton, twenty-nine by James Madison, and five by John Jay of New York. The individual essays became known by the order in which they were published. The essays proceed as a long argument in favor of ratification, each essay building off the arguments of the last, and they were a coordinated effort primary between Hamilton and Madison. In Federalist No. 1, Alexander Hamilton laid out what he believed to be the stakes for America’s future – “…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.”
The early Federalist Papers were an argument for the union of the states – namely, that geography favored such a union, that all of the states would benefit economically, and that thirteen loosely aligned states would constantly have their security threatened by foreign governments and each other if the proposed structure was not adopted. Building off a theme Hamilton began in Federalist No. 9, it is in Federalist No. 10, perhaps the most prominent and cited of the eighty-five essays, that James Madison makes his first appearance in the Federalist Papers. In No. 10, Madison argues that the idea of an extended republic, like the one envisioned by the Constitutional Framers, actually works better in a larger, not smaller, society because no one faction could dominate the liberty interests of other citizens. As Madison explains, “Extend the sphere, and you take in a greater variety of parties and interests; you make it less probable that a majority of the whole will…invade the rights of other citizens.”
Madison goes on to discuss the reason why a republic, or representative democracy, is best. In a theme Madison discusses again later, he believes it is imperative that the passions of the moment do not overtake the long-term liberties of the individual. By electing a body of officeholders to speak on the people’s behalf, these officeholders “whose patriotism and love of justice will be least likely to sacrifice it to temporary or partial considerations,” is in Madison’s view, the structure that allows for calm reflection, rather than hasty decision making.
In Federalist No. 47 through 51, the extended discussion of the need for separation of powers occurs. No. 49 returns to the theme that the Constitution must be elevated above the immediate passions of the people. Previous societies that always went to the people for every decision not only created an unstable government, the dangers of which Hamilton warned against in No. 37 but also allowed the majority to impose their will on the minority, no matter how significant in number that minority was.
In No. 51, Madison discusses human nature and the need to check the ambitions of some who might use their power to dominate the liberty interests of others. “Ambition must be made to counteract ambition,” Madison states. Madison believed the Constitution would prevent government abuses that had been the rule until this point in human history. He famously states:
But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.
The Federalist Papers go on to discuss the proposed government structure with more specificity, including the reasoning behind the House of Representatives, the Senate, the unitary executive (the presidency), and the federal judiciary. In No. 84, Hamilton argues that a bill of rights is unnecessary because the Constitution limits the power of government over the people. In his view, because the Constitution limits the federal government to only those enumerated powers found within its text, it is safely assumed that all other rights and powers are held by the states and the people. However, those who opposed the Constitution sought guarantees in writing that the people’s liberties would be secured. This concern ultimately led to the ratification of the Bill of Rights in December 1791.
When the Federalist Papers were introduced between October 1787 and April 1788, they did not impact the ratification debate as aggressively as the authors hoped. However, over time, they were referenced by politicians, Supreme Court justices, academics, and by Americans in many other capacities. The Federalist Papers became the best primary source for understanding our Constitution. They remain a must-read for all Americans.
The Anti-Federalist Papers
When the Constitution was released by various newspapers of the time, it created a passionate response from many who immediately denounced it as an attempt to re-institute the same type of tyrannical government the country had shed so much blood to remove during the American Revolution. The central government being proposed was believed by some to be the destruction of state and local governments. Many heroes of the American Revolution believed this, including Samuel Adams of Massachusetts and Patrick Henry of Virginia.
The debate over the ratification of the Constitution became so fierce so quickly that many did not risk being attached to one side of the debate over the other for fear of retribution. Like the Federalist Papers and its arguments favoring ratification, many individuals began to author their own essays in opposition. These essays became collectively known as The Anti-Federalist Papers.
Written under many pseudonyms, including “Brutus,” “Cato,” “Centinel,” “John Dewitt,” and “Federal Farmer,” the Anti-Federalist essays aimed to raise concerns over elements of the Constitution they perceived as dangerous to a free people. This included the power of the unitary executive, the federal judiciary, the “Necessary and Proper Clause” (Article I, Section 8), the “Supremacy Clause” (Article VI, Paragraph 2), and the federal taxation power, among others. Interestingly, these are still aspects of the Constitution debated today.
Of all the Anti-Federalist Papers, the essays written by “Brutus” (named after the famous Roman senator who killed the tyrant Julius Caesar) to the people of New York most closely made direct counterarguments to those made in the Federalist Papers. History strongly believes “Brutus” was Robert Yates, the delegate from New York who left the Constitutional Convention in July 1787, never to return. The essays of “Cato” were believed to have been written by New York Governor George Clinton and those of “Centinel” by Samuel Bryan of Pennsylvania. The identity of “Federal Farmer,” who was supposed to represent the average citizen, was thought to have been Richard Henry Lee of Virginia or Melancton Smith of New York, but this is still in dispute today. “John Dewitt” has never been identified.
There remain many misconceptions about Anti-Federalists. First, they did not choose their name. They called themselves the true federalists because they, in fact, wanted more power to remain in state and local governments, not in a central government. The Federalists smartly took the name first, leaving those with reservations about the Constitution to be called “Anti” Federalists to differentiate themselves. Second, they were not anti-Constitution, but against certain aspects of the proposed Constitution. Primarily, they were concerned the proposed Constitution would replace a monarchy with a central government with the same potential to become tyrannical.
Starting with George Mason at the Convention in Philadelphia and including voices such as Thomas Jefferson, the Anti-Federalists did all Americans a great service by insisting that a bill of rights be included in the Constitution to further protect the liberties of the individual. Although not passed until after the Constitution was ratified, the Bill of Rights became the first ten amendments to the Constitution and makes clear, in writing, that “We the People” retain our God-given liberties. Without this insistence by Anti-Federalists, the Bill of Rights we know today would likely not exist in its current form.
Ratification
The Constitution required nine of the original thirteen states to vote in favor of its terms to go into effect. Each state called special ratification conventions so more voices could be heard in the debate.
Thanks mainly to equal representation in the Senate, smaller states took the lead in ratifying the Constitution. Delaware became the first state to ratify the Constitution on December 7, 1787. New Jersey and Georgia quickly followed them. Thanks largely to the influence of Roger Sherman, the facilitator of the “Great Compromise,” Connecticut was the fourth state to vote in favor of ratification.
Pennsylvania, the first large state to hold a convention, was next to ratify, thanks to the influence of Convention delegate James Wilson. However, as a reflection of the intensity of the debate the Constitution created, Wilson himself was almost killed after a group of Anti-Federalists attacked him. He was only spared thanks to the intervention of some of his supporters.
In January 1988, Massachusetts, the state that started the American Revolution in April 1775, had its convention. Samuel Adams, a signer of the Declaration of Independence and one of the founding era’s great patriots, did not need any pseudonym to declare his opposition to the Constitution. The lack of a bill of rights and other issues, including the lack of a more forceful stance against slavery, became important issues in Massachusetts.
The final vote in Massachusetts was 187-168. An ailing John Hancock, the state’s governor, voted in favor after initial hesitation, likely swaying the vote. With their vote in favor of ratification, the Massachusetts delegation included a document of proposed amendments to the Constitution called “Conciliatory Propositions” that made it clear to the other states that it wanted a bill of rights included. Later, states like Virginia and New York would offer similar proposed amendments.
In June 1788, after the yes votes of Maryland and South Carolina, New Hampshire became the ninth state to ratify, making the Constitution the law of the land for the United States. However, four crucial states still had not voted.
It was thought that Virginia, the largest state with land that still included present-day West Virginia and what became the state of Kentucky, would be the ninth state to vote in favor. But the Virginia convention was contentious from the beginning.
The home state of men who became four of the first five presidents, the Virginia convention was likely the most intense of all the state conventions. James Madison, Edmund Rudolph, and George Washington were all in favor. Rudolph did not sign the original Constitution in Philadelphia because he did not like the idea of a unitary executive and its lack of a bill of rights. He changed his vote because he recognized the importance of Virginia joining the other states in a union. George Mason, Richard Henry Lee, and Patrick Henry were some of those opposed. Henry gave speeches that went on for hours explaining his opposition.
When the final vote came, Virginia voted to ratify 89-79. Its support likely played an essential role in the decisions of the final three states.
It was known that the New York vote would be close as it was home to many Anti-Federalist writers. Those with much influence in the state, such as Governor George Clinton, Robert Yates, and others, were strongly opposed. Unlike his underwhelming contribution in Philadelphia during the Convention, Alexander Hamilton did a masterful job of advocating for the Constitution by answering opposition arguments with counterarguments and by generally calming fears that the new Constitution would lead to a new form of tyranny. The final vote in New York was 30-27.
After initially voting against ratification, North Carolina switched its vote in November 1789 to in favor. The smallest state of Rhode Island, which sent no delegates to Philadelphia, became the last of the thirteen states to ratify in May 1790.
The original Constitution is in the National Archives. Jacob Shallus, son of German immigrants, who was working in the Pennsylvania State House as an assistant clerk, handwrote over 4,000 words in one weekend over approximately 40 hours from drafts of the Convention delegates. 39 delegates signed this engrossed version on September 17, 1787.
Final Thoughts
It was Thomas Jefferson who expressed America’s founding principles in the Declaration of Independence when he stated, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” He went on to state that there cannot be a legitimate government without the consent of the governed. The United States needed a government structure that protected these principles for these words to be more than an elegant sentiment. This is what the men in Philadelphia set out to accomplish.
If we as a nation move away from the Constitution’s principles of limited government, liberty, and the equal application of the law, it means that the country is moving towards something else. This something else is a return to the historic norms of absolute power in the hands of the very few, corruption, and the devaluation of life and the individual citizen. America goes down this latter path at its great peril.
Make no mistake, the United States is not immune to some form of a tyrannical government slowly, or even abruptly, taking power. Just as the Constitutional Framers envisioned, the Constitution remains the great shield that protects all Americans from just such a government as long as “We the People” remain faithful to its principles. The Constitution must always remain a guarantee of liberty for the individual American. Government officials cannot simply declare an “emergency” and suspend our God-given Constitutional rights whenever it suits them. The Framers understood this.
In a famous story, it is said that a group of citizens approached Benjamin Franklin at the end of the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia. They asked what sort of government the delegates had created. Franklin responded, “A republic, if you can keep it.”
Please Read:
Recommended Reading:
Miracle at Philadelphia by Catherine Drinker Bowen
The Federalist Papers by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay
The Anti-Federalist Papers (I recommend the essays by “Brutus”)