what did the anti-federalists want added to the new constitution?

The Constitution and Its Origins

The Ratification of the Constitution

Learning Objectives

By the end of this section, you will be able to:

• Identify the steps required to ratify the Constitution
• Depict arguments the framers raised in support of a potent national government and counterpoints raised by the Anti-Federalists

On September 17, 1787, the delegates to the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia voted to approve the document they had drafted over the course of many months. Some did not support it, but the majority did. Earlier it could become the police force of the land, however, the Constitution faced another hurdle. Information technology had to exist ratified by usa.

THE RATIFICATION PROCESS

Article Seven, the concluding article of the Constitution, required that before the Constitution could become police force and a new government could form, the document had to be ratified by nine of the thirteen states. Xi days later on the delegates at the Philadelphia convention approved it, copies of the Constitution were sent to each of the states, which were to concur ratifying conventions to either have or reject it.

This approach to ratification was an unusual ane. Since the say-so inherent in the Articles of Confederation and the Confederation Congress had rested on the consent of the states, changes to the nation'due south authorities should too have been ratified by the state legislatures. Instead, past calling upon land legislatures to concur ratification conventions to corroborate the Constitution, the framers avoided asking the legislators to approve a document that would require them to give up a caste of their own power. The men attending the ratification conventions would be delegates elected past their neighbors to stand for their interests. They were not being asked to relinquish their ability; in fact, they were existence asked to place limits upon the power of their state legislators, whom they may not have elected in the start place. 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. If convention delegates, who were chosen past popular vote, approved information technology, then the new government could rightly merits that it ruled with the consent of the people.

The greatest sticking point when it came to ratification, every bit it had been at the Constitutional Convention itself, was the relative power of the land and federal governments. The framers of the Constitution believed that without the ability to maintain and command an army and navy, impose taxes, and strength usa to comply with laws passed by Congress, the young nation would not survive for very long. But many people resisted increasing the powers of the national government at the expense of united states. Virginia's Patrick Henry, for example, feared that the newly created function of president would place excessive power in the hands of ane man. He besides disapproved of the federal regime's new ability to taxation its citizens. This correct, Henry believed, should remain with the states.

Other delegates, such equally Edmund Randolph of Virginia, disapproved of the Constitution because it created a new federal judicial system. Their fear was that the federal courts would be besides far abroad from where those who were tried lived. State courts were located closer to the homes of both plaintiffs and defendants, and information technology was believed that judges and juries in country courts could amend empathise the actions of those who appeared earlier them. In response to these fears, the federal government created federal courts in each of the states every bit well as in Maine, which was then part of Massachusetts, and Kentucky, which was office of Virginia.

Pauline Maier. 2010. Ratification: The People Debate the Constitution, 1787-1788. New York: Simon & Schuster, 464.

Peradventure the greatest source of dissatisfaction with the Constitution was that it did not guarantee protection of individual liberties. State governments had given jury trials to residents charged with violating the police and immune their residents to possess weapons for their protection. Some had skillful religious tolerance also. The Constitution, however, did not contain reassurances that the federal regime would do and so. Although it provided for habeas corpus and prohibited both a religious examination for property office and granting noble titles, some citizens feared the loss of their traditional rights and the violation of their liberties. This led many of the Constitution's opponents to telephone call for a bill of rights and the refusal to ratify the document without one. The lack of a nib of rights was especially problematic in Virginia, every bit the Virginia Annunciation of Rights was the about extensive rights-granting document amongst the states. The hope that a bill of rights would be drafted for the Constitution persuaded delegates in many states to support ratification.

Maier, Ratification, 431.

Thomas Jefferson on the Bill of Rights

John Adams and Thomas Jefferson carried on a lively correspondence regarding the ratification of the Constitution. In the following extract (reproduced as written) from a alphabetic character dated March 15, 1789, after the Constitution had been ratified by 9 states but before it had been approved by all thirteen, Jefferson reiterates his previously expressed concerns that a beak of rights to protect citizens' freedoms was necessary and should be added to the Constitution:

"In the arguments in favor of a announcement of rights, . . . I am happy to find that on the whole you are a friend to this amendment. The Annunciation of rights is like all other human blessings assimilated with some inconveniences, and not accomplishing fully it's object. Just the skilful in this instance vastly overweighs the evil. . . . This musical instrument [the Constitution] forms united states of america into one state equally to certain objects, and gives us a legislative & executive trunk for these objects. It should therefore guard united states of america confronting their abuses of power. . . . Experience proves the inefficacy of a neb of rights. True. Simply tho information technology is not absolutely efficacious under all circumstances, information technology is of great potency always, and rarely inefficacious. . . . At that place is a remarkeable difference between the . . . Inconveniences which attend a Declaration of rights, & those which attend the want of it. . . . The inconveniences of the want of a Declaration are permanent, afflicting & irreparable: they are in abiding progression from bad to worse."

Alphabetic character from Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, March 15, 1789, https://www.gwu.edu/~ffcp/exhibit/p7/p7_1text.html.

What were some of the inconveniences of not having a bill of rights that Jefferson mentioned? Why did he decide in favor of having 1?

It was articulate how some states would vote. Smaller states, like Delaware, favored the Constitution. Equal representation in the Senate would requite them a degree of equality with the larger states, and a strong national government with an army at its control would be ameliorate able to defend them than their state militias could. Larger states, all the same, had significant power to lose. They 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 authorities. Thus, from the very start, the supporters of the Constitution feared that New York, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, and Virginia would decline to ratify it. That would mean all nine of the remaining states would have to, and Rhode Isle, the smallest country, was unlikely to do and then. It had not fifty-fifty sent delegates to the convention in Philadelphia. And even if it joined the other states in ratifying the certificate and the requisite ix votes were bandage, the new nation would not be secure without its largest, wealthiest, and most populous states every bit members of the spousal relationship.

THE RATIFICATION CAMPAIGN

On the question of ratification, citizens quickly separated into two groups: Federalists and Anti-Federalists. The Federalists supported it. They tended to exist amid the elite members of society—wealthy and well-educated landowners, businessmen, and old military commanders who believed a strong government would exist amend for both national defence force and economic growth. A national currency, which the federal government had the power to create, would ease concern transactions. The ability of the federal government to regulate merchandise and place tariffs on imports would protect merchants from foreign competition. Furthermore, the power to collect taxes would allow the national authorities to fund internal improvements like roads, which would too help businessmen. Support for the Federalists was especially strong in New England.

Opponents of ratification were called Anti-Federalists. Anti-Federalists feared the power of the national regime and believed state legislatures, with which they had more contact, could ameliorate protect their freedoms. Although some Anti-Federalists, similar Patrick Henry, were wealthy, nearly distrusted the elite and believed a strong federal government would favor the rich over those of "the middling sort." This was certainly the fright of Melancton Smith, a New York merchant and landowner, who believed that power should residue in the hands of small, landowning farmers of average wealth who "are more temperate, of better morals and less ambitious than the great."

Isaac Krannick. 1999. "The Nifty National Discussion: The Discourse of Politics in 1787." In What Did the Constitution Hateful to Early Americans? ed. Edward Countryman. Boston: Bedford/St. Martins, 52.

Even members of the social elite, like Henry, feared that the centralization of power would lead to the cosmos of a political elite, to the detriment of state sovereignty and private liberty.

Related to these concerns were fears that the potent key government Federalists advocated for would levy taxes on farmers and planters, who lacked the hard currency needed to pay them. Many besides believed Congress would impose tariffs on foreign imports that would make American agricultural products less welcome in Europe and in European colonies in the western hemisphere. For these reasons, Anti-Federalist sentiment was especially strong in the Due south.

Some Anti-Federalists also believed that the big 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 (i.eastward., the ability to put self-interest and niggling concerns aside for the good of the larger community). In small republics, similarities among members of the community would naturally pb them to the same positions and brand information technology easier for those in power to understand the needs of their neighbors. In a larger republic, one that encompassed nearly the entire Eastern Seaboard and ran west to the Appalachian Mountains, people would lack such a strong commonality of interests.

Krannick, Great National Discussion, 42-43.

Likewise, Anti-Federalists argued, the diversity of religion tolerated by the Constitution would prevent the formation of a political community with shared values and interests. The Constitution contained no provisions for government support of churches or of religious education, and Article 6 explicitly forbade the use of religious tests to determine eligibility for public part. This caused many, similar Henry Abbot of North Carolina, to fear that authorities would be placed in the easily of "pagans . . . and Mahometans [Muslims]."

Krannick, Great National Give-and-take, 42.

Information technology is hard to decide how many people were Federalists and how many were Anti-Federalists in 1787. The Federalists won the solar day, but they may not have been in the bulk. Commencement, the Federalist position tended to win support amongst businessmen, large farmers, and, in the South, plantation owners. These people tended to live along the Eastern Seaboard. In 1787, most of u.s.a. were divided into voting districts in a manner that gave more votes to the eastern part of the state than to the western office.

Evelyn C. Fink and William H. Riker. 1989. "The Strategy of Ratification." In The Federalist Papers and the New Institutionalism, eds. Bernard Grofman and Donald Wittman. New York: Agathon, 229.

Thus, in some states, like Virginia and S Carolina, small farmers who may accept favored the Anti-Federalist position were unable to elect as many delegates to state ratification conventions as those who lived in the due east. Small settlements may also take lacked the funds to send delegates to the convention.

Fink and Riker, Strategy of Ratification, 221.

In all the states, educated men authored pamphlets and published essays and cartoons arguing either for or against ratification ((Figure)). Although many writers supported each position, it is the Federalist essays that are at present best known. The arguments these authors put along, along with explicit guarantees that amendments would be added to protect individual liberties, helped to sway delegates to ratification conventions in many states.

This Massachusetts Scout cartoon (a) encourages the country's voters to bring together Georgia and neighboring Connecticut in ratifying the Constitution. Less than a month after, on February six, 1788, Massachusetts became the sixth fellow member of the newly formed federal union (b).

For obvious reasons, smaller, less populous states favored the Constitution and the protection of a stiff federal government. Every bit shown in (Figure), Delaware and New Jersey ratified the document within a few months after it was sent to them for approval in 1787. Connecticut ratified it early on in 1788. 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.

This timeline shows the order in which states ratified the new Constitution. Small states that would benefit from the protection of a larger union ratified the Constitution adequately quickly, such as Delaware and Connecticut. Larger, more populous states like Virginia and New York took longer. The last state to ratify was Rhode Isle, a state that had e'er proven reluctant to act aslope the others.

Although the Constitution went into result following ratification by New Hampshire, four states still remained exterior the newly formed union. Two were the wealthy, populous states of Virginia and New York. In Virginia, James Madison'due south active support and the intercession of George Washington, who wrote letters to the convention, inverse the minds of many. Some who had initially opposed the Constitution, such equally Edmund Randolph, were persuaded that the creation of a strong union was necessary for the country'southward survival and changed their position. Other Virginia delegates were swayed by the promise that a bill of rights like to the Virginia Declaration of Rights would be added after the Constitution was ratified. On June 25, 1788, Virginia became the tenth country to grant its approval.

The approval of New York was the last major hurdle. 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 stiff federal authorities and support of the Constitution ((Figure)). Later compiled as The Federalist and at present known 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.

From 1787 to 1788, Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay authored a series of essays intended to convince Americans, peculiarly New Yorkers, to support the new Constitution. These essays, which originally appeared in newspapers, were nerveless and published together nether the title The Federalist in 1788. They are at present known as The Federalist Papers.

The essays addressed a variety of issues that troubled citizens. For instance, in Federalist No. 51, attributed to James Madison ((Effigy)), the writer assured readers they did not need to fear that the national government would grow too powerful. The federal system, in which power was divided between the national and state governments, and the division of authority within the federal government into dissever branches would prevent whatever one part of the regime from becoming too strong. Furthermore, tyranny could not arise in a government in which "the legislature necessarily predominates." Finally, the desire of office holders in each branch of government to do the powers given to them, described equally "personal motives," would encourage them to limit any endeavour past the other branches to overstep their say-so. According to Madison, "Ambition must be fabricated to counteract ambition."

Other essays countered unlike criticisms made of the Constitution and echoed the argument in favor of a strong national regime. In Federalist No. 35, for instance, Hamilton ((Figure)) argued that people's interests could in fact exist represented by men who were not their neighbors. Indeed, Hamilton asked rhetorically, would American citizens best be served by a representative "whose observation does not travel across the circle of his neighbors and his acquaintances" or by someone with more than all-encompassing knowledge of the world? To those who argued that a merchant and country-owning elite would come to boss Congress, Hamilton countered that the bulk of men currently sitting in New York's state senate and assembly were landowners of moderate wealth and that artisans commonly chose merchants, "their natural patron[s] and friend[south]," to stand for them. An aristocracy would not arise, and if it did, its members would have been chosen past bottom men. Similarly, Jay reminded New Yorkers in Federalist No. 2 that union had been the goal of Americans since the fourth dimension of the Revolution. A desire for union was natural among people of such "like sentiments" who "were united to each other by the strongest ties," and the government proposed by the Constitution was the best means of achieving that union.

James Madison (a) played a vital role in the formation of the Constitution. He was an important participant in the Constitutional Convention and authored many of The Federalist Papers. Despite the fact that he did not believe that a Nib of Rights was necessary, he wrote one in order to allay the fears of those who believed the federal government was likewise powerful. He as well served as Thomas Jefferson's vice president and was elected president himself in 1808. Alexander Hamilton (b) was one of the greatest political minds of the early United states of america. He authored the majority of The Federalist Papers and served as Secretary of the Treasury in George Washington'southward administration.

Objections that an aristocracy group of wealthy and educated bankers, businessmen, and large landowners would come to boss the nation'south politics were also addressed by Madison in Federalist No. 10. Americans need not fear the ability of factions or special interests, he argued, for the republic was too big and the interests of its people too various to let the evolution of big, powerful political parties. Likewise, elected representatives, who were expected to "possess the most bonny merit," would protect the government from being controlled by "an unjust and interested [biased in favor of their ain interests] majority."

For those who worried that the president might indeed abound too ambitious or rex-like, Hamilton, in Federalist No. 68, provided balls that placing the leadership of the country in the hands of one person was non unsafe. Electors from each country would select the president. Because these men would exist members of a "transient" body chosen together only for the purpose of choosing the president and would meet in carve up deliberations in each state, they would be free of corruption and beyond the influence of the "heats and ferments" of the voters. Indeed, Hamilton argued in Federalist No. 70, instead of being afraid that the president would become a tyrant, Americans should realize that information technology was easier to control 1 person than it was to control many. Furthermore, ane person could too human action with an "energy" that Congress did not possess. Making decisions lonely, the president could decide what actions should be taken faster than could Congress, whose deliberations, because of its size, were necessarily deadening. At times, the "conclusion, activity, secrecy, and dispatch" of the chief executive might be necessary.

The Library of Congress has The Federalist Papers on their website. The Anti-Federalists also produced a torso of writings, less extensive than The Federalists Papers, which argued against the ratification of the Constitution. Nonetheless, these were not written by one small grouping of men as The Federalist Papers had been. A collection of the writings that are unofficially called The Anti-Federalist Papers is likewise available online.

The arguments of the Federalists were persuasive, merely whether they actually succeeded in changing the minds of New Yorkers is unclear. Once Virginia ratified the Constitution on June 25, 1788, New York realized that it had little option only to exercise so equally well. If information technology did not ratify the Constitution, it would exist the last large state that had not joined the wedlock. Thus, on July 26, 1788, the majority of delegates to New York's ratification convention voted to accept the Constitution. A yr after, N Carolina became the twelfth country to corroborate. Alone and realizing information technology could not hope to survive on its own, Rhode Island became the last state to ratify, nearly ii years after New York had done so.

Term Limits

One of the objections raised to the Constitution'due south new government was that it did not set term limits for members of Congress or the president. Those who opposed a strong cardinal government argued that this failure could permit a handful of powerful men to gain command of the nation and rule it for as long equally they wished. Although the framers did non anticipate the idea of career politicians, 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 improve guide the land through crises. A president who did not prove to be a good leader would be voted out of office instead of being reelected. In fact, presidents long followed George Washington'due south example and limited themselves to ii terms. Simply in 1951, later Franklin Roosevelt had been elected iv times, was the Twenty-2nd Amendment passed to restrict the presidency to two terms.

Are term limits a good idea? Should they have originally been included in the Constitution? Why or why non? Are at that place times when term limits might not be good?

Summary

Anti-Federalists objected to the power the Constitution gave the federal government and the absence of a bill of rights to protect individual liberties. The Federalists countered that a stiff government was necessary to lead the new nation and promised to add a beak of rights to the Constitution. The Federalist Papers, in particular, argued in favor of ratification and sought to convince people that the new government would not get tyrannical. Finally, in June 1788, New Hampshire became the ninth state to approve the Constitution, making it the police of the land. The big and prosperous states of Virginia and New York followed shortly thereafter, and the remaining states joined as well.

Why were The Federalist Papers written?

1. To encourage states to oppose the Constitution.
2. To encourage New York to ratify the Constitution.
3. To oppose the admission of slaveholding states to the federal matrimony.
4. To encourage people to vote for George Washington every bit the nation's first president.

What argument did Alexander Hamilton utilize to convince people that it was not dangerous to place power in the hands of one human being?

1. That man would take to laissez passer a religious test earlier he could get president; thus, citizens could be sure that he was of practiced graphic symbol.
2. Ane human being could respond to crises more quickly than a group of men like Congress.
3. Information technology was easier to command the actions of ane human being than the actions of a group.
4. both B and C

Why did so many people oppose ratification of the Constitution, and how was their opposition partly overcome?

Glossary

Anti-Federalists

those who did non support ratification of the Constitution

Federalists

those who supported ratification of the Constitution

The Federalist Papers

a collection of fourscore-5 essays written by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay in support of ratification of the Constitution

robertsondeadelay72.blogspot.com

Source: https://opentextbc.ca/americangovernment2eopenstax/chapter/the-ratification-of-the-constitution/

Share this post