Major threats to the Republic prior to convention (as viewed by convention
delegates; what drove the Constitution:
local majoritarian tyrannies at state level undermining republicanism.
framers sought to secure/insert/institutionalize principle of republicanism
(very small window with which to do this: "The Critical Period")
Conviction that a Republican form of government could work (The Critical
Period; 1776-1789); crisis of Critical Period was real, widespread, and
dangerous.
Worry/anxiety about the loss of the possibility of a free govt. that free govt.
was dead
biggest fear: is free govt. possible given the nature of man; whether man had
the ability to govern himself.
Madison brewed over this; particularly, yet he shared this concern with all
his peers (common concern) whether self-government could work or whether
humans were forever condemned to rule by force.
failures of Articles:
"Federalist": "[Under the Articles of Confederation the country was]
almost at the last stage of national humiliation. There is scarcely
anything that can wound the pride or degrade the character of an
independent nation which we do not experience. National
engagements had been broken; the United States was excluded from
the western posts and from the full use of the Mississippi River, yet
because it had 'no troops, nor treasury, nor government' it could not
even remonstrate with force or dignity. Commerce was said to be 'at
the lowest point of declension,' property was everywhere threatened
by state legislatures under the control of debtors bent upon
defrauding their creditors; the wheels of government had been
brought to 'an awful stand,' and 'the frail and tottering edifice seems
ready to fall upon our heads, and to crush us beneath its ruins."
endless array of Daniel Shays type grievances
threat of foreign invasions
British (Northwest)
Spanish closed trans-Mississippi River and encouraged Creek-Seminole
raids in Southeast while making claims east of Mississippi
Pirating
British closed West Indies to trade
Debts (revolution essentially funded on credit)
even soldiers were paid on credit and many weren't paid; nor were
merchants; who offered supplies on credit.
1786-1787: interest on foreign debt alone was over $1.5 million
(federal revenue during this period was one third of this interest
(created currency crisis)
At end of Revolution, standing army stood at 700 men (undertrained, under equipped, and certainly overstretched)
Many states imposed internal tariffs on out-of-state goods.
These problems prompted Virginians and northwesterners to call Annapolis
Convention to discuss some of these currency problems.
1786: VA proposed an interstate convention to discuss a uniform regulation
of commerce
If the delegates could agree on a set of recommendations, the states might
then authorize Congress to carry them out
Several states expressed a readiness to take up Virginia's proposal, and the
meeting was scheduled for Annapolis MD on the first Monday in
September
There is evidence that some of the commissioners saw in the interstate
convention an opportunity to inaugurate a thorough overhaul of the
Articles of Confederation
NJ delegation empowered to consider not only commerce, but "other
important matters"
NY sent Hamilton, an ardent naitonalist
VA sent Madison who wrote to Jefferson the previous month that
"Gentlemen on both within and without Congress wish to make this
meeting subservient to a plenipotentiary convention for amending the
Confederation"
Commissioners from 5 states assembled in Annapolis in September
(NY, NJ, PA, DE, VA)
Dickinson (nationalists) also attended
they agreed the Articles of Confederation were fatally flawed;
however, they also found themselves agreed on the need for more
extended reforms than most of them were empowered to suggest.
Though delegates from other states were still on their way to the meeting,
those present hastily adopted a report/drafted a resolution to be sent to the
states as well as to the Congress for adoption, calling for a national
convention the following May (1787) to discuss the Articles of
Confederation (the report was presumably drafted by Hamilton).
The report's recommendation: "to render the Constitution of the
Federal Government adequate to the exigencies of the Union"
Whereas several states (VA) responded directly to this invitation
by appointing delegates, other states regarded the proposal as
revolutionary and refused to take action until Congress passed a
resolution authorizing the convention
The Philadelphia Convention:
29 delegates from 7 states made their appearance in the Philadelphia State
House on May 25, 1787
In the course of the meetings, 26 more delegates took their seats
74 delegates appointed total, yet only 55 attended
last delegation to arrive (NH on July 23)
last delegate to arrive (August 6)
Framers represented 12 separate states, each fiercely protective of its own
fortunes and future; different in manners, circumstances, and prejudices
Only RI was not represented
French representative at the convention
First session held on May 28 and meetings convened until September 17,
1787 when a draft of the Constitution was ready to be signed
Only 30 of the 55 delegates participated regularly in the Philadelphia
proceedings
Most delegates who attended the Philadelphia Convention were young and
experienced
average age: 42/43
only 12 delegates were over 54 years of age
11 delegates younger than Madison (who was 36)
six were under 31 (couldn't serve as President under the document
they wrote)
the youngest delegate was 26/27 (Jonathan Dayton)
eldest delegate (Ben Franklin at 81)
Edmund S. Morgan "The Birth of the Republic" (p.31):
"Much has been written about these men and their work, and since
we are still intimately affected by what they did, we cannot view them
with complete detachment. Indeed, as long as patriotism remained
the principle ingredient of American historical writing, the
Constitutional Convention was regarded [as John Adams recalled] an
assemblage of [heroes, sages and demigods]."
three-fourths (39) of the delegates served in the Confederation
Congress
8 delegates signed the Declaration of Independence
7 delegates had been governors
34 delegates were lawyers
one-third of the delegates were veterans of the Continental
Army
1913: Charles Beard "An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution of the
United States"
Significance: Led many historians to re-evaluate their
perception/view of men at the convention; ever since historians have
striven to look at the convention as a meeting of ordinary human
beings
Beard examined the career of every member of the convention
discovering that most of them had invested in public securities in the
U.S. and therefore stood to gain by strengthening public credit.
Beard also examined their political ideas as expressed in the
convention and found that most of them wished to restrain the people
from legislation that would adversely affect the value of public
securities.
Beard's premise: the makers of the Constitution (consciously or
unconsciously) were seeking to protect their own economic interests.
Morgan's interpretation: he concedes that personal economic may have been
one of the motivating factors influencing the convention delegates; however,
he believes the members of the convention had a selfish interest in bringing
about a public good (i.e. you can't differentiate between or separate the two)
Morgan (p.132): "Patriotism led responsible Americans to invest in
public securities in wartime, and patriotism guided their efforts to revive
the languishing nation which their money and blood had purchased."
Earlier instances:
Colonists did not wish to see their trade ruined or their
property endangered by Parliamentary taxation and fought to
protect themselves (promoted public interest)
Land speculators in the west sought to protect their claims in
the west (promoted public interest; led to a national domain)
Morgan "The Birth of the Republic" (p.134):
"The members of the convention were certainly human, which
is to say they were complex, unpredictable, paradoxical,
compounded a rationality and irrationality, moved by
selfishness and by altruism, by love and by hate and by anger-and by principle. If the convention succeeded, it was not
simply because the members possessed a common economic or
class interest but because they held common principles,
principles learned in twenty years of British tyranny and
American seeking, in colonial assemblies, in state legislatures,
and in Congress. Their work has often been described as a
bundle of compromises, and so it was, but the compromises
were almost all on matters of detail. They could afford to give
and take where they disagreed, because there were so many
important things about which they did agree."
Notable absences:
Samuel Adams (MA) was ill
Patrick Henry (VA) boycotted; after reading proposed draft: "A HA!
I smell a rat!"
John Jay, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson were on diplomatic
missions.
Key delegates:
Madison came to Philadelphia Convention armed to teeth:
Began writing his Memorandum on Ancient Confederations in
1783
He was well versed on ancient Republican principles
Madison was a wonderful tactician
Madison was able to overcome the various indictments on republican
regimes; crucial to the creation/adoption of a republican form of
government
Hamilton thought a lot about
the Congress
economic system
nature of the Presidential office
(this was an invented office)
Washington
Elected presiding officer (first day)
there would have been no Constitution without his presence or
his willingness to accept the Presidency
Franklin was sage at convention:
He suggested the same conversational manner practiced by his
discussion club (The Junto) be adopted/exercised by delegates
at the convention
Members of the Junto displayed conversational humility by
putting forth their own ideas and questions through
suggestions or questions using naive curiosity to avoid
contradicting people in an offensive manner.
Franklin also stressed the importance of deferring (at least in
appearance) to others. Don't seem to vie with others, rather,
seem to admire them; giving them the opportunity of
displaying their own qualifications.
Franklin also stressed teh need to compromise (it was noble);
"Both sides must part with some of their demands"
Rules of procedure adopted at convention:
proceedings kept secret (oath of secrecy)
without this, the convention probably would not have adopted a
constitution
PA state legislature was meeting upstairs in Philadelphia State House
while the Philadelphia Convention was meeting
make no vote binding until the end
convention debates don't follow any game plan; rather they went in
loops and round about (reflects a deliberate effort to allow for open
discussion)
many delegates did in fact change their minds (i.e. were persuaded by
the rhetoric/logic of other delegates or were persuaded to change their
positions on matters of principle and/or self interest)
made use of Parliamentary rule of Committee of the Whole
By voting once (in committee of the whole) and referring the question
again to the entire Parliamentary body (after resolving out of
committee of the whole), they could revisit the issue and make sure
they got it right
proves they were aware of the enormity of what they were doing
creation of subcommittees
refer matter to subcommittee when things seemed to be getting
unmanageable
took heat off the debates
discussion can be more candid in small groups
subcommittee reports back to the entire Parliamentary body;
their proposals are the result of compromise (key issues
already hammered out)
Challenge of framing the Constitution:
You have to allow for the essence of human nature in designing a system
while allowing for enough flexibility in that system (allow for change)
without changing to much (lest you erase the very foundation for the thing
itself)
Consensus among delegates:
Delegates in general agreement that were defects in the Articles of
Confederation that ought to be remedied
All of the delegates agreed that government at some level had to have the
authority to:
tax
raise armies
regulate commerce
coin money
enact bankruptcy legislation
regulate western territories
make treaties with foreign governments
"do all other things that government must do."
Henry Steele Commager (Quoted in "Interpreting American History",
p.106)
"[many of them agreed]...that government, like dress, is a badge of
lost innocence. Almost everyone was afraid of government because
they were afraid of human nature. The widely accepted precept of
eighteenth century philosophy was that all men were corrupt...such
men believed that the highest statesmanship was to contrive as many
limitations on power as the ingenuity and wit of man could
contrive....They believed that men, if given the chance, would misuse
power."
The dark philosophy of Thomas Hobbes gave a certain pessimistic cast to the
minds of the delegates
General mistrust of man (confined to the common man and
democratic rule)
Delegates agreed in the broad outlines that the central government must be
strengthened by allowing/enabling it to act without the mediation of state
governments in certain areas
And if the central government was going to be freed from the restraint by
state governments (which it must), and if the central government was going
to be strengthened (taxation/legislation) it must be made truly representative
(which the Confederation Congress was not) and it must also be furnished
with some new safeguard against abuse of its authority (separation of
powers: divide central authority into several different departments each
independent of the others and each with very specified powers; system of
checks and balances: James Madison articulated its necessity: "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.")
Problem: Whereas confederacies were too weak to govern and tended to
collapse from internal dissention; stronger forms of government could
become too powerful and threaten liberty. How to devise a government
strong enough to preserve order without threatening liberty.
Dilemma: striking a balance between liberty/order; state/federal
governments
Majority of delegates committed to principle of equality as expressed in
Declaration of Independence
Both Federalists and Anti-Federalists loved republicanism and they had the
same conception of how the universe is arranged; they had a love affair with
ancient republics.
Types of regimes:
tyranny--monarchy
oligarchy--aristocracy
tyranny--democracy
tyranny, oligarchy, and tyranny are all improper forms of regimes;
the key difference: in who's interest did they rule
ancient fear of Constitutional balance was that it would become
unbalanced
"the few" (the upper house) would become too aristocratic
"the many" (the lower house) would become too democratic
the monarch would become too monarchical
republicanism became new political theory (late 18th century)
before this period, democracy was viewed as deficient, non-respected,
with its own natural vices
the key to preserving republicanism was to keep these 3 separate
branches balanced (maintain a mixed regime)
To most of the delegates, democracy was a halfway house between
dictatorship and mob rule
Belief that liberty and democracy were incompatible; to some,
perhaps, democracy was perceived as a threat to liberty
According to Richard Hofstadter, most delegates at the convention associated
liberty with property, not democracy (democracy meant the unchecked rule
of the masses; would result in property re-distribution)
Most delegates believed the government should act as a referee among
propertied interests; while protecting the haves from the have-nots, it should
also see that no propertied interest would become so powerful as to control
the others.
Political power was to be used as a means of securing economic
advantage; in order for men to perfect/maintain this system, all
property would need to have its proportionate representation in
government.
Only the propertied class should be represented; based on assumption
that men with a large enough economic stake in society to make them
safe and responsible citizens.
(Since many Americans held some property, many could presumably
participate in policymaking)
Members of the Philadelphia Convention knew that they were framing a
Constitution for ages to come; a Constitution that would serve as a model for
other nations.
They all felt a tremendous amount of responsibility, even of destiny
Delegates at the convention agreed on the urgency of their task; most
of them were convinced that unless they came up with an
acceptable/workable scheme of national government, the union would
dissolve; result: whenever arguments became heated, delegates
reminded each other of the dreadful consequences if they failed
Gunning Bedford (DE): "the condition of the United States
requires that something should be immediately done."
Elbridge Gerry (MA): "The fate of the union will be decided
by the convention."
Caleb Strong: "It is agreed on all hands that Congress are
nearly at an end. If no accommodation takes place, the union
itself must soon be dissolved."
While driven by class motives, this feeling of responsibility led them to
control their own personal ambitions and to pursue a more moderate
course
Even though they feared the power of the majority they were insistent
that the ultimate power of government must rest with the majority;
this power, however, must be controlled
Most delegates at the convention were also committed to the idea that
authority must be frequently reassessed through the electoral process.
By not limiting the number of terms that a president or members of
Congress can serve, the framers showed a greater degree of
confidence in the intelligence and good judgment of the people;
furthermore, the members of the convention were careful not to
interfere with the people's right to choose their leaders (if government
leadership met with the approval of the voters, they could, in theory,
be re-elected indefinitely)
Even though the Constitution itself contained no property restriction
on vote (no serious effort was made to include one), the framers did
sanction property restrictions by permitting the states to establish
voting qualifications.
By not placing limitations on the government's power to tax or upon
the government's use of its money power, the framers did not provide
safeguards for private property
Madison's VA Plan was a radical plan:
genuinely national government
govt. drew its power from the people without any govt intervention (power
drawn from local level
The fact no one really protested or criticized the core of the VA Plan reflects
the genuine concern even amongst those who were staunch defenders of state
rights that even they recognized considered the necessity of a stronger
central government
NJ Plan was really just an attempt to get a seat at the table and keep VA
Plan honest
Most likely its proponents really didn't expect to get it enacted; they too
realized the need for nationalist proposal
What the NJ Plan really achieved:
backers of VA Plan (let's hear them out; let's not offend them too
much)
backers of NJ Plan (let's bang our fists and yell loud enough to at least
get the more offensive provisions removed/changed from VA Plan
Question that almost broke the convention: representation
VA Plan:
principle of proportional representation (even senators chose by
representatives in U.S. House of Reps)
VA (largest state)
Other states with large populations (PA, NY, MA)
Equal representation in Senate was a way to check tyranny of majority
(shows founders really understood nature/danger of principle of
proportional representation)
Hollow concept of Presidency included within VA Plan (prior to the convention, the
new office wasn't given a lot of thought; the concept hadn't yet sunk into the
conscience mind)
none of the state constitutions had strong executive offices
Commager (Quoted in Garraty "Interpreting American History" p. 105):
"...more time was devoted to [the nature of the executive at the convention]
than to any other aspect of the Constitution. Members changed their minds
frequently...About the presidency, there was a kind of schizophrenia in the
convention. On the one hand, there was a deep distrust of the executive, an
instinct almost everywhere--perfectly natural after their experience with
George III and certain royal governors--to create a weak executive and a
strong legislature...."
the Presidency included the best of monarchy (energy and discretion)
powers:
debate over removal power wasn't settled fully until 1925 when U.S.
Supreme Court Justice Taft wrote the majority opinion in "Myers v.
U.S."
issue: if Senate has to assent to appointment, should Senate not also
have to assent to removal?
unitary or multiple executive? (lose accountability/less efficiency)
length of terms (decrease length of term--increase accountability)
Slavery:
concept of slavery:
Ancient concept: slaves were trophies of war; no notion that slaves
were chattle (property to be bought or sold)
Later, slaves were viewed as chattle:
economic view: as species of property, slaves were profitable
moral attitude: view that negroes weren't people in the purest
sense; that they were inferior human beings and therefore
weren't extended rights afforded under the Constitution; this
hypocritical attitude was not an intentional rationalization of
involuntary servitude; rather, slavery debases the slave owner,
teaching him the wrong lessons about the possibility of a truly
republican government
Question of whether a slave culture could ever be truly
incorporated into a republican society because a majoritarian
tyranny already exists there
It was recognized that while slavery might be a wrong, it was
sacred and inviolable insofar as any adverse action by the
federal government might be concerned. Recognizing that
slaves were to the South as population/wealth were to the
North.
Jefferson compared it to having a wolf by the ears, you can
neither hold on or let go
George Mason saw slavery as a sin for which we would be
punished (i.e. the infernal traffic) and as an institution/practice
that weakened the union (i.e. the fifth column during the
revolution)
Issue of Fugitive slaves:
By placing Fugitive slave clause in Article IV, the obligation/limitation
of returning fugitive slaves belonged to states, not congress; meant the
powers of federal government to determine morality of slavery wasn't
constitutionally required
Slavery not mentioned in Constitution specifically
Unless a sensible solution/compromise could be found regarding the issue of
slavery and representation, the issue threatened to break the convention
a sensible solution/compromise had to be found (based on principle)
which must satisfy both sides
Article I section 2 (three-fifths clause)
Slave importation and the compromise (compromise between deep
southerners and northerners reached behind closed doors; turning point in
convention):
Article I section 9 (North would back off limiting the slave trade; importation
of slaves cannot be prohibited for a period of 20 years (until 1808) in
exchange for the south backing off their insistence on requiring a super
majority to enact navigation laws; meanwhile, an impost tax may be imposed
on the importation of slaves, not exceeding ten dollars for each person)
Why 1808 for abolition of international slave trade:
Whereas immediate abolition would have caused the South to
bolt from the union, too long of a delay would have caused some
northern states to bolt
Luther Martin introduced the impost tax to offbalance the
three-fifths clause (i.e. to slow down the influx that would
result from the three-fifths clause)
James Wilson (PA) pointed out that by not taxing the slave
trade, they were putting a premium on slaves
Some delegates charged that the impost tax amounted to a
prohibition and that it would be offensive to people to lump
blacks with inanimate objects (property); Edward
Ellsworth suggested (as a compromise) allowing the states
to determine their own morality laws; Other delegates
pointed out that the tax wasn't intended to be a prohibition
Roger Sherman, Edward Ellsworth, and C.C. Pinckney
stated leave the institution alone because it would die off on
its own anyway (these were the days before the cotton gin
and before 1808 it became difficult to buy slaves ($10/slave)
to replace dying ones (belief the birth rate would not be high
enough)
Gouvenor Morris (stylist who helped to draft constitution's wording)
suggested adding the word "slaves" in the importation of slave s and even
mentioning those states the clause was written for
Mason agreed with inserting "slaves" but suggested not to mention the states
Roger Sherman didn't like either suggestion; his suggestion was to omit the
word "slaves" altogether (as a way of fooling Europe; the omission
provided a moral loophole)
Consensus today: by not using the word "slave", it was a deliberate omission
of self-deception (like omitting "national" and "Stamp Act")
As a result of not inserting the word, the convention did not sanction slavery.
Later, abolitionists referred to the omission of the word to strengthen their
arguments (it was easier for them to approach the subject because of the
veiled language on the subject in the constitution)
Article IV section 2(Fugitive slave clause: "No person held to service of labor in one
state, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law
or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be
delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due"
James Madison foresaw slavery as a line of demarcation between the north and the
south (disparity between slave states (south) and free states (north) would divide the
U.S.
During ratification debates, RI proposed Congress pass an amendment to prohibit
slave trade altogether; aside from this suggestion (and from Mason), slavery wasn't
an issue during the ratification debates
Were the framers truly republicans or did they betray the spirit of 1776 through
their own conservatism?
No they didn't:
the Annapolis Convention was bold
the convention itself was bold and radical
the experiment in republicanism was bold
Madison was able to overcome the various indictments on republican regimes;
crucial to the creation/adoption of a republican form of government
What the framers dared to do was make democracy feasible and possible
Final draft of Constitution (four pages) signed September 17, 1787 in Philadelphia
The Constitution was conceived out of argument and compromise
39/42 delegates present signed the Constitution.
Elbridge Gerry, George Mason, and Edmund Randolph refused; they all predicted
the Constitution would end up in a despotic regime.
Think of the document of the Constitution as a work of art;
think of the crafting, genius, and design that went into it's construction
what's hidden behind various meanings
principle elements of all paintings:
light (principles in the declaration)
perspective (the framers painted an abstract idea; whereas every previous
govt originated in places or figures, the framers crafted a govt from an
ideal)
Declaration of Independence was original founding document; provided
philosophical argument upon which constitution rests.
Declaration is more than rhetoric; there's no reason to believe TJ and other
founders believed there existed certain rights antecedent to the state; that
govt. isn't the source of these rights.
The metaphysical role of man as discussed in the Preamble of the
Declaration of Independence is implicit in the Constitution.
the canvas upon which the framers painted their idea (4 pages of
parchment/vellum)
One of the characteristics of vellum is that earlier writing tends to
fade and upon close inspection, the faded writing can still be
viewed behind new writing (it doesn't completely disappear
similarly, the ideas of the Articles of Confederation and the
Continental Congress (though faded) could still be viewed; ie the
ideas weren't completely eradicated
like all painting and art, the constitution too needs to be renovated and
restored (amendment process)
Like most paintings, the Constitution is open to different interpretations
(loose contructionism v. strict constructionism)
the U.S. Constitution is the world's oldest working Constitution (charter); marked
by its durability
People empowered their government
People created the laws by which they would live
Most of the authors acknowledged its imperfections
Few framers were prepared to acclaim the Constitution as the best of all possible
plans of government; this was predictable given that no single individual, group,
or section had succeeded in writing into it everything it thought desirable.
Whereas many Federalists were unhappy with the final charter (like James
Madison) who felt they gave up too much, they still supported it; yet they figured
the 1st Congress would tie up loose ends
The framers thought it imperative that they convey to the public the impression that
complete unity had prevailed in the convention; as such, the Constitution was declared to
be ratified "unanimously" by eleven states and Alexander Hamilton (the only NY
delegate present on teh 17th of September and who had no authority to sign for his state)
Claim of unanimity deceptive; it applied only to States, not to individual delegates.
September 18, 1787: Washington wrote to Lafayette:
"It is the result of four months deliberation. It is now a child of fortune, to
be fostered by some and buffeted by others. What will be the general
opinion, or the reception of it, is not for me to decide, nor shall I say
anything for or against it. If it be good, I suppose it will work its way; if
bad, it will recoil on the framers"
Madison recounted: "Every word...decides a question between power and liberty."
Disaffection with the imperfections of Constitution voiced most loudly by AntiFederalists
The leading figures (Madison and Hamilton) knew the challenges that lay ahead
(ratification debates)
4 out of the 16 delegates who left the convention early were known to disapprove
of the Constitution.
Essays in opposition to Constitution published before the ink was even dry on the
parchment the Constitution was written
Debates over ratification:
NY delegates (Robert Yates and Robert Lansing) left convention early to organize
opposition to ratification of Constitution before the ink on the parchment was
even dry
Concerns (major themes): The anti-federalists agreed with the federalists on the
ends of government, but they disagreed with them on the means to that end
1.
concern that nature of true republicanism could only work in a small
republic; that it won't work in a system of federalism (echoed
Montesquie's arguments)
true political community is small; for as distance increases beyond the ties
of family and community, the desire to sacrifice for their preservation
decreases
this remote tutelary power of consolidated govt posed a real threat
to them
You do business with someone not necessarily on the basis of a
belief they're going to play by the rules, but because you knew that
person and are familiar with them (i.e. a small republic)
2.
the new government had real power
(how do you check the masses; ie prevent a tyranny of the majority
through an unchecked legislature while creating a system that still
appeals to the masses; ie the demos)
Concern over tyranny of majority was a real concern because the
Constitution itself rests its authority/basis on the people at large
Anti-federalists demanded insertion of Bill of Rights as guarantee
that rights would be protected
Antifederalism: derived from colonial period and the American Revolution; state of
mind that perpetuated the following attitudes/beliefs:
distrust of centralized government; view that any energetic central government
was potential despotism
belief in eternal vigilance against authority; need to guard liberty against authority
equated freedom with local authority
liberty and happiness; not empire and splendor, were their main concerns.
antifederalists were those who could not change their thinking or divest
themselves of the conventional wisdom of the day regarding government and its
functions
Antifederalists consisted of farmers (especially the less prosperous ones), individuals
who lived outside the intellectual and economic radius of seaport towns,
those individuals, groups, localities, states who stood to lose under the
new arrangement, and those whose personal fortunes were bound up with
the preservation of state rights (in general, the new plan did not promote
their interests)
In some local struggles for power, the intrinsic merits of the Constitution took a
back seat to how the new arrangement would affect individuals/groups in a certain
state or locality
Kentuckians and other westerners were apt to see in the Constitution the spectre
of Spanish control of the navigation of the Mississippi
For many westerners, the fact that the East favored the adoption of the
Constitution was enough to damn it
Antifederalists did not just fear power, but they distrusted people put in power; put a man
in political office, particularly one which gave him power over national affairs; they
averred, and all the worst qualities of human nature--ambition, avarice, self love, and lust
for power--were almost certain to gain ascendancy. The people elect the best man to
office but the exercise of power would almost certainly bring out his evil qualities.
Ratification was, as the Duke of Wellington quote put it referring to the victory at
Waterloo: "It was a damned close run thing"
Antifederalist methods/strategies:
Anti-federalist papers signed under pseudonym "Brutus"
depicted the horrors that would follow upon the adoption of the Constitution; the
rich; it was said, would establish a despotism and enslave the poor
once started upon the course of centralized government, the U.S. would
end up as a despotism ruled by a rod of iron
deliberately exacerbated sectional animosities:
warned that a powerful national government. by attempting to create
uniformity out of diversity, would enable a section to dominate the Union
and to impose its will (virtues, manners, morals, customs, values, and
beliefs) upon rival sections
asserted that a strong central government would invoke the general
welfare clause to interfere with the labor system of the south; that a
northern commander at the head of a northern army might decree the
forcible abolition of slavery
declared that the commerce clause in the hands of a northern majority
would be converted into a weapon to aid northern merchants and
shipowners to monopolize the staples of the southern states and reduce the
price of those commodities by 50 percent
incited class feeling in the struggle against the Constitution; they pictured the
Constitution as a plot of the rich and well born (i.e. it was an aristocratic
document)
The Federalists:
generally came from the highest echelons of American society (the aristocracy of
the country; the rich and well born)
lawyers, large landowners, slaveholders, manufacturers,
shipowners/shipbuilders, merchants, and ex-army officers, professional men
came from the maritime towns; still, had the Federalists not been able to win the
support of rural areas, the Constitution would have gone down to defeat
support also came from laborers, artisans, mechanics, and American farmers
An alliance of sections made possible the adoption of the Constitution, and the
principal parties to this coalition were northern merchants and southern planters
Those seeking/needing protection against the Indians and the removal of the
British from the northwest posts needed a strong government capable of
accomplishing this
Except for the VA ratifying convention, the Federalists had enjoyed the advantage in all
the state ratifying conventions of better leadership, the support of more men of wealth,
education, and prestige, as well as more press coverage for their arguments
Federalist strategies:
Madison and others feared most the idea of a second convention where the original
constitution would be amended Federalist strategies:
By appropriating the name of "Federalists" thereby leaving their opponents the invidious
name of "antifederalists", the Federalists won the battle of semantics
Federalists used rather heavy handed techniques to achieve ratification of the
Constitution which almost led to failure in obtaining ratification in some states (PA, NY,
CT)
Contrary to the rule of unanimity adopted under the Articles of Confederation
requiring amendments; the convention declared (against the regulations
prescribed by constituted authority) that ratification by 9 out of 13 states was
required (RI was opposed and signs from NY were equally unpropitious)
There were simply too many "erring sisters in the Confederacy for the convention
to follow rules which had been drawn upon the assumption that all the sisters
were chaste.
because it was a forgone conclusion that the state legislatures, whose authority
was certain to be diminished by the adoption of the Constitution, would not give it
a dispassionate exam, the framers declared it was to be submitted to popularly
elected conventions, not state legislatures, for ratification; in this way, adoption of
the Constitution became a popular referendum
By appealing to the people directly to sanction it's handiwork, the conventions
applied the principle/doctrine of the sovereignty of the people in constitutionmaking (agreement among the people v. agreement between the states)
rather than seek ratification in state legislatures (who held power and therefore
had something to lose ) where the Constitution would likely be defeated, the
method used in obtaining ratification for the Constitution was through state
ratifying conventions (attended by delegates chosen by the people); i.e.,
ratification of the Constitution became a referendum
Surprisingly, only a small proportion of qualified voters went to the polls
to elect members of the state ratifying convention; why?
seeming indifference stemming in part from
indecision/bewilderment
Despite the exaggerations of the Federalists and Antifederalists,
the mass of the people were not convinced that what they did in
1787-88 would determine the entire course of American history;
many weren't even sure if adoption would be a good or a bad
thing--thus, most took a neutral (wait and see) position
Absence of political parties to get the vote out
difficulty (esp in rural areas) of getting to the polls; since
seaports/maritime towns (population centers) had better
transportation systems and were strongholds of Federalism,
favored ratification
Voting was not yet an established habit among Americans
By staying away from the polls, the mass of the people permitted a
minority to determine the future of the American political system
Also, adoption required the ratification of only 9 out of 13 states (less than threefourths)
Placed a great deal of emphasis on the "very great weight of influence of the persons"
who framed the Constitution (i.e. the delegates at Philadelphia)
Exagerrated the extent and degree of the postwar economic decline (thus attributing it to
the combined failures of the Articles of Confederation and the need of a new plan of
government)
Exaggerated the repercussions that would result from any rejection of the proposed
Constitution; predicting that it would "in all probability put a final period to the Union"
Washington warned that the choice was between the Constitution and chaos
publication of the Federalist papers; since little/no restraints were imposed upon the
press, their opinion/message was disseminated by the large number of newspapers that
served the reading public in the towns
represent the most cogent exposition of the merits of the Constitution
came from the pens of Hamilton, Madison, and Jay
Federalist Papers written in 6 years; but were the result of a lifetime of
learning
Considered to be the greatest arguments/essays ever written on political
society
about 82 (of the 85) were written by Hamilton and Madison; the others
were written by John Jay
First brought out in weekly installments in a New York newspaper (late
1787)
Originally addressed primarily to the voters in NY, its scope was
broadened until it became a philosophical commentary upon the
Constitution
Served as a storehouse of arguments in behalf of the Constitution
first 36 essays were a reminder/recapitulation of vices of confederal form
of government
essays 37-85: proactive approach as to how the system devised by the
Constitution was the only alternative to the confederal form and how it
was the best plan for a republican form of government
Federalist papers have a Socratic dialogical quality ("the anti-federalists
have said this...the federalists have said this....")
You could infer the nature of anti-federalist arguments just by
reading the Federalist papers (w/o reading the anti-federalist
essays)
Federalist papers signed under pseudonym "Publius"
Federalists took the position that a government must have power commensurate with its
responsibilities
A strong central government would provide the following benefits:
secure property rights
advancement of the general welfare by an "energetic" national government
relative immunity from foreign wars/domestic convulsions
enhancement of national power, dignity, and prestige of the U.S.
Central theme of the "Federalist" is that a republican form of government, equipped with
proper checks and balances and with power judiciously distributed between the central
authority and the states, is entirely compatible with the stability and order essential to the
well-being of society
Federalist 84: Hamilton addresses issue of Bill of Rights; he's against it b/c the structure
of the Constitution is itself a Bill of Rights.
The addition of a Bill of Rights in and of itself won't secure those rights; they would be,
as Madison pointed out, no more than mere marks on parchment.
Madison tried to allay Antifederalist fears of a "consolidated government" by explaining
that the proposed Constitution created neither a truly national nor a federal form of
government but a "composition of both" (i.e. neither state nor national government were
subordinate to the other, rather, they were coordinated powers)
Madison understood the nature of power; he argued that the Constitution contained so
many devices designed to safeguard freedom from the abuse of power that the
danger/threat power posed was reduced to a minimum
Madison (in Federalist 10) points out that the only way you can defend the
virtues of a small republic is to extend that republic
The central problem in small republics is majoritarian tyranny because the
people have all the power where in America's new extended republic they
don't have all the power
Madison contended that the vast territorial expanse and the diversity of
interests produced by differences in occupation, manners, and geography
offered a further guarantee of the success of republican government in the
U.S.
In the U.S., no local demagogues or factions would ever succeed in
gaining control of the federal government; instead, men of enlarged views
and national outlook would be elected to national office
The new system of government would protect the government from
tyranny of majority factions, not by eliminating its causes (i.e. by
eliminating liberty) but by regulating its effects:
Minority factions would be controlled by majority factions
By extending the republic, you increase the number of interest
groups; these different interest groups would cancel each other out
Larger republics have a greater number of representatives who add
an extra layer of filter to cool passions
Madison: "[whereas state legislatures were seminaries of faction, local prejudice,
and low 'pimping' politics], society [in an extended republic] would be broken
into so many parts, interests and classes of citizens, that the rights of individuals,
or of the minority, will be in little danger from interested combinations of the
majority"
Federalist 10 doesn't stand alone; it stands along with Federalist 51:
Principle of separation of powers within/between the 3 separate
branches
Term limits (give those dissatisfied an opportunity to seize the
reigns
system of checks and balances; "ambition must be made to
counteract ambition...."
each branch makes a claim/participates in the creation of
public policy/enactment of legislation (what's more, this
claim has some constitutional validity to it)
By involving one branch in the others business, you can
maintain the balance and separation of powers
By combining the principle of the extended republic with the constitutional
principle of representation in Congress (upper and lower house), you can provide
a check on the masses while also providing a formula for the admission of new
states (i.e. regardless of how small the population of a territory is at the time it's
admitted as a state, it would still be admitted according to the principle of state
equality in the Senate)
Federalist views regarding the nature of man; they had faith in republican form of
government:
Whereas the people were described as full of "folly and wickedness", "depraved",
full of "rage", and the "impulses of rage, resentment, jealousy, avarice and of
other irregular and violent propensities", Madison, Hamilton, and Jay
recognized/ackowledged "a portion of virtue and honor among mankind"
They believed that the American people usually intended, although they often
went wide of the mark, to promote the public good
The authors of the "Federalist" asserted that if you give the people proper
institutions in which their good qualities could find outlet and which restrained
their disposition to act upon impulse, a republic based on the principle of popular
sovereignty could survive
While admitting that elected officials were peculiarly susceptible to the impulses
of power, the "Federalist" insisted that they were worthy of trust until proved
otherwise.
High office was believed to have a regenerative (even an enobling) effect
upon its possessors; ambition was directed toward serving the people and
leaving an honorable name to posterity
Basic Federalist argument that broke the back of Anti-federalists: If Anti-federalists want
the benefits of union, they can't obtain them under the structure of government they were
demanding.
The first five conventions to consider the Constitution gave it their enthusiastic
endorsement
December 7, 1787: Delaware ratifies Constitution (unanimous)
December 12, 1787: PA ratifies Constitution (46-23)
December 13, 1787: NJ ratifies Constitution (unanimous)
January 2, 1788: GA ratifies Constitution (unanimous)
January 9, 1788: CT ratifies Constitution (128-40)
By February 1788, a clear-cut pattern had emerged: the small agricultural states
(even PA had only one major population center; Philadelphia), reconciled by the
adoption of the Great Compromise, eagerly embraced the Constitution; it was
clear that farmers, when they took the trouble to vote, favored adoption
First real battle over ratification occurred in Massachusetts (6th state to ratify it on
February 6, 1788)
Maine (at this time a district of Massachusetts) feared that the adoption of the
Constitution would prejudice its chances for separate statehood)
There was a power struggle between East and West, the back country decisively
defeated the Philadelphia plan;
In Massachusetts, the Shaysites, defeated in the field, had come back to
win the state elections of 1788. John Hancock had defeated Governor
James Bowdoin, who had endeared himself to the conservatives by his
part in suppressing Shays rebellion. The former rebels voted as they shot-against the domination of the eastern conservatives who were the chief
proponents of the Constitution in the state. As a result, when the
Massachusetts convention assembled in February 1788, a "black cloud" of
enemies of the proposed Constitution descended upon Boston from the
three western counties
Antifederalists had the support of Elbridge Gerry and Sam Adams
Although elected president of the Massachusetts convention, Hancock remained
in seclusion, alleging ill health (Governor Hancock was prepared to trim his sails
to the prevailing breeze)
Hancock was not too ill to enter into negotiations with the Federalists behind the
scenes:
An ambitious man, he found that the Federalists could offer more in the
way of political jobs than could the Antifederalists; a bargain was made:
in exchange for his endorsement of the Constitution--an event certain to
stagger the Anti-federalists--Hancock received the Federalists' promise of
support for the presidency of the U.S., provided VA didn't accede to the
Constitution or, if VA ratified, the consolation price of the Vice
Presidency
Even with Hancock's aid, the Federalists were obliged to agree to nine
recommendatory amendments (Bill of Rights) to the Constitution demanded by
the Antifederalists before they would endorse the Constitution
187-168 vote in favor of its ratification (10 votes changed the outcome)
Still, the Constitution was ratified unconditionally in a state where at the
beginning of its ratifying convention it appeared the plan would be rejected
April 28, 1788: MD ratifies Constitution (63-11)
May 23, 1788: SC ratifies Constitution (149-73)
New Hampshire ratification debate:
When the convention assembled in February 1788, it was so loaded with
Antifederalists that had the Constitution been put to the vote it would have been
rejected
The badly shaken Federalists deemed themselves fortunate to secure an
adjournment until June 1788
In June 1788 the Constitution was required to run the most strenuous part of the gauntlet:
the states of NH, NC, NY, VA
June 21, 1788: (NH) vote in favor of ratification (57-47); 5 votes changed the
outcome
***With ratification by 9th state, the Constitution is adopted
VA ratification debate intense
The VA ratifying convention, scheduled to meet in February 1788, had been
postponed in order that the Old Dominion might exert a decisive influence upon
the course of events
James Monroe: in the event that many states rejected the Constitution,VA
"might mediate between contending parties and lead the way to a union
more palatable to all"
Until the VA convention assembled in July 1788, the Federalists had enjoyed the
advantage in the state ratifying conventions of better leadership, the support of
more men of wealth, education, and prestige, and more newspaper coverage for
their arguments. In VA, however, the situation was reversed.
George Mason, Edmund Randolph, and Patrick Henry (former governor
and most powerful person in the state) led the Antifederalist forces in the
state convention
At the state ratifying convention, a majority of the delegates were opposed to the
adoption of the Constitution
But VA aspired to lead the Union, not to isolate itself from the rest of the country
in the company of RI
In VA (as elsewhere) the Antifederalists had neither the solidarity nor the unity of
purpose of the Federalists, nor did they have the important advantage (unlike their
opponents) of being able to hold out promises of political office
Edmund Randolph (a moderate Antifederalist) was persuaded to switch
sides partly by the promise of the office of Attorney General in the new
government
June 25, 1788: vote to ratify Constitution (89-79); the issue of ratification v.
rejection remained in doubt almost until the last minute
yet ratification was without conditions (recommendatory insertion of proposed
amendments [Bill of Rights]; not mandatory) and nothing was said about a
second constitutional convention
New York:
NY Governor (Clinton) considered the new plan to be a mortal blow to state
sovereignty.
Oppostition to new plan in large part a result of the effect it would have on the
state's tariff duties (which was its main source of revenue)
Already firmly in control of the governorship and the legislature and sensing that
public opinion was averse to the Constitution, the New York Antifederalists
removed all property qualifications upon voting for delegates to the state ratifying
convention (no other state adopted this procedure)
The reason: Antifederalists were certain that this procedure (enlarging the
electorate) would increase their majority; the Antifederalists cherished
democracy b/c it seemed likely to produce a vote against the Constitution
Governor Clinton's faith in the people was vindicated; the election
returned to the convention 19 Federalists and 45 antifederalists
Wealth and ability may have been on the side of the Federalists, but
numbers was on the side of the Antifederalists
Hamilton had hoped the "Federalist" would help turn the tide; however, even
though his arguments confounded the opposition, they did not convince them
Despite their numbers, the Antifederalists were divided over the question whether
the Constitution should be rejected outright or accepted with amendments; they
even failed to agree whether admendments should be mandatory or
recommendatory
The Federalists in New York were obliged to pay a higher price than in any other
state to secure the unconditional ratification of the Constitution
Rather than accept ratification on the condition that amendments be
adopted--certain to reopen the question of ratification even in the states
that had already acted--the New York Federalists promised to work toward
the convening of a second convention where, presumably, the Constitution
would be rewritten to satisfy the Antifederalists' objections
July 26, 1788: NY ratifies Constitution (30-27)
"when New York ratified in July 1788, the Federalists really had something to
drink and riot about. 'The whole night was spent in loud acclamations of Joy,'
remarked a participant, 'and continued until past 8 o'clock this morning.' In the
parade that followed, a federal ship with a figure on the bowsprit of Hamilton
holding the Constitution in his right hand, with flowing sails and canvas waves
dashing against her sides, was wheeled triumphantly down Broadway. It was a
glorious day and the exulting Federalists topped it off by wrecking the press of an
Antifederalist printer."
NC convention rejected the Constitution (mandatory insertion of amendments [Bill of
Rights])
RI refused to take any action whatever (mandatory insertion of amendments [Bill of
Rights])
Still, by the autumn of 1788 eleven states had gathered under the "New Roof" erected by
the framers in Philadelphia. GW hailed this achievement as "a new phenomenon in the
political and moral world; and an astonishing victory gained by enlightened reason over
brute force." By assembling wise men rather than armies, Americans had demonstrated
that a free people, acting with moderation, can abolish and institute governments.
Although it was a peaceful, voluntary, and deliberate transition from one government to
another, it was rightly regarded as a revolution (a Second American Revolution where
eleven states had seceded from a government in which RI and NC had remained loyal).
Madison would later use his position in Congress to finish the work on the Constitution
and to fight off anti-federalist efforts; he had such vested interest in the success of the
Constitution, he sought to ensure the allegiance even of the opponents of the
Constitution; what better way to do that than to accommodate their interests/wishes.
House of Representatives (1st Congress) not all too interested in taking up the
issue of the Bill of Rights
June 8: Madison speech reintroducing Bill of Rights
House delayed until August
Madison reduced the original 190 or so amendments to 12 (only 10 were adopted)
two kinds of proposed amendments:
rights
structural limits
two structural amendments were defeated:
Congress giving itself a mid-term pay raise
Increasing size of House to reduce size of districts (to make
representatives more responsive)
Madison wanted to insert Bill of Rights into structural parts/text of the Constitution to
make it a seamless document
Roger Sherman wanted to insert Bill of Rights at end to reduce its importance; he wished
to leave the structural parts of the Constitution separate and untouched (he won the day)
Since the insertion of the Bill of Rights, the Constitution has become all about rights.
we think the Bill of Rights and the rest of the Constitution are separate and opposing
parts; that the Constitution is somehow deficient and the Bill of Rights protects us from it
(grew out of Progressive indictment)
This was Madison's biggest concern (as if were those rights not included, they'd
be infringed upon)
Between 1840-1960 this concept was perpetuated and taught as if the Constitution
reflects a class struggle (i.e. the Bill of Rights protects "demos" from an
aristocratic document
first 8 amendments originated in English common law as reassurance to Antifederalists
concern over enumeration issue reassured through 9th amendment
federalists took back structural changes they lost in the structural amendments not
adopted
November 21, 1789: NC (after ratification of Bill of Rights)
May 29, 1790: RI (after ratification of Bill of Rights)