On September 17, 1787, the delegates who approved the Constitution affixed their signatures. George Washington as president of the convention sent a copy to each state with a cover letter urging swift ratification.
The states summoned their own conventions to examine the new charter and decide. Delaware, Pennsylvania and New Jersey ratified before the end of 1787. Georgia, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Maryland, South Carolina and New Hampshire followed in the first half of 1788. This provided the nine states the Constitution required for it to take effect among them. But Virginia and New York, respectively the largest state and the one most strategically located, were still making up their minds. If either state refused, the Constitution would face severe credibility problems.
James Madison took charge of ratification in Virginia and Alexander Hamilton in New York. These two, with help from New York’s John Jay, produced a series of essays explaining the merits of the Constitution and its advantages over the Articles of Confederation. The essays were published pseudonymously, all signed by “Publius.” Collectively they became known as the Federalist Papers, and the supporters of ratification as Federalists.
The essence of the Federalist argument was that the government of the United States needed to be strengthened, both absolutely and vis a vis the states. It needed to be the government of a union rather than the coordinating committee of a confederation. It needed to be able to touch the lives of individuals directly, in such matters as taxation, rather than through their state governments only. It needed to be able to present one face and voice to the world in matters of trade, diplomacy and, when necessary, war.
Skeptics, called Antifederalists, weren’t persuaded. They pointed out that the American Revolution had been provoked by an excessively powerful (British) government. To the Federalists’ insistence on the need for order, the Antifederalists countered that order mustn’t come at the expense of liberty. The Antifederalists said that when government was necessary, it should be state government, with few exceptions. State governments were near at hand and straightforward to monitor. The national government would be distant and difficult to control.
The Antifederalists especially objected to the absence of a bill of rights. The new Constitution said what the government could do, but it did not say what the government could not do. For centuries running back to the Magna Carta of 1215, Englishmen had struggled to rein in government. The constitutions of the states had bills of rights: sections of the constitutions forbidding state governments from abridging freedom of speech, from engaging in unwarranted searches, from denying jury trials and from otherwise usurping the rights of the people. The new Constitution should offer similar guarantees of liberty.
Madison rejoined that the existence of the state bills of rights made a national bill of rights unnecessary. Moreover, the new national government would have only the powers specified by positive grant in the Constitution. None of these powers permitted the violation of personal rights.
The Antifederalists were unpersuaded. Governments had a tendency to grow, they said. Anyway, if the national government wasn’t intended to infringe on individual rights, what harm would come from locking this down in writing?
Madison still resisted. He didn’t want to have to call the convention back into session to make the changes the Antifederalists demanded. The delay would kill the momentum toward ratification. He said it would be counterproductive to list the things the Congress could not do, because no list could be comprehensive and whatever was not on the list would be presumed to be within Congress’s power.
The Antifederalists proposed conditional ratification. They would vote in favor of the Constitution on condition that a bill of rights be added at first opportunity.
Madison and Hamilton publicly rejected conditional ratification as worse than no ratification. The states ratifying conditionally would be the judges of whether the bill of rights was satisfactory, and the whole ratification battle would have to be refought. No, they said, the states must ratify unconditionally or not at all.
In private, though, Madison offered assurance that a bill of rights would be forthcoming shortly after the new government commenced operation. He did so in the interest of getting the votes ratification required. He did so, as well, with the design of being the one drafting the bill of rights.
Upon Madison’s tacit assurance, Virginia and New York voted in favor of ratification. North Carolina and Rhode, the last of the thirteen, made it unanimous.
The deed was done. The coup was accomplished. The Congress of the Articles of Confederation acknowledged defeat and disbanded.
This eight part series on the Constitution was helpful and it has come at at a time when we should pay attention to what it means. The device the author used with the eight parts allowed us to see the complicated issues and individuals that made up this creation. I am sure there were other ways to explore these issues or other ways to go about it.
What came through for me was the remarkable achievement that was accomplished in a short time. Another note: this document was never complete and obviously was never perfect. In fact the drafters knew this and arranged the amendment process. The Constitution was left with major holes from which willful leaders could exploit for their ends. Therefore it is not surprising we have a President capable of setting its principles aside. I am sure they could see this possibility. I always thought it was interesting that Lincoln primarily drew upon the words of Jefferson and not the Constitution to argue for freeing those enslaved.
Equally important was the ratification by the states in gaining final approval. This was a grand achievement.
This series was done well within a large scholarship devoted to the framing of the American Consitution.