The afternoon of June 25 marked the final day of debate in Richmond.  Henry immediately took aim at the framers of the Constitution.  “What right had they to say ‘We, the People?’” he demanded.  “Who authorized them to speak the language of We, the People, instead of We, the States?” The future of liberty around the world was at stake, he declared.  “We have it in our power to secure the happiness of one half the human race.” In his closing remarks, Henry announced he would accept the will of his colleagues:

“If I shall be in the minority, I shall have those powerful sensations which arise from a conviction of being overpowered in a good cause.  Yet I will be a peaceable citizen.  My head, my hand, and my heart, shall be at liberty to retrieve the loss of liberty, and remove the defects of that system in a constitutional way.”

—quoted in Patrick Henry: A Biography

A Great Debate

As soon as the Philadelphia Convention closed its doors, delegates had rushed home to begin the campaign for ratification.  Each state would elect a convention to vote on the new Constitution.  Nine states had to vote in favor of the Constitution to put it into effect.

As soon as Americans learned about the new Constitution, they began to argue over whether it should be ratified.  The debate took place in state legislatures, in mass meetings, in the columns of newspapers, and in everyday conversations.

Federalists and Antifederalists

Supporters of the Constitution called themselves Federalists.  The name was chosen with care.  It emphasized that the Constitution would create a federal system.  Power would be divided between a central government and regional governments.  They hoped the name would remind those Americans who feared a central government that the states would retain many of their powers.

Supporters of the Federalists and the new Constitution included large landowners who wanted the property protection a strong central government could provide.  Supporters also included merchants and artisans living in large coastal cities.  The inability of the Confederation Congress to regulate trade had hit these citizens hard.  They believed that an effective federal government that could impose taxes on foreign goods would help their businesses.

Many farmers who lived near the coast or along rivers that led to the coast also supported the Constitution, as did farmers who shipped goods across state borders.  These farmers depended on trade for their livelihood and had been frustrated by the different tariffs and duties the states imposed.  They wanted a strong central government that could regulate trade consistently.

Opponents to the Constitution were called Antifederalists, a somewhat misleading name, as they were not truly against federalism.  They accepted the need for a national government.  The real issue, as far as they were concerned, was whether the national government or the state governments would be supreme.  Prominent Antifederalists included John Hancock, Patrick Henry, Richard Henry Lee of Virginia, and George Clinton, governor of New York.  Two members of the Constitutional Convention, Edmund Randolph and George Mason, became Antifederalists because they believed the new Constitution should have included a bill of rights.  Sam Adams agreed.  He opposed the Constitution because he believed it endangered the independence of the states.

Many Antifederalists were western farmers living far from the coast.  These people considered themselves self-sufficient and were suspicious of the wealthy and powerful.  Many of them were also deeply in debt and suspected that the new Constitution was simply a way for wealthy creditors to get rid of paper money and foreclose on their farms.  One farmer named Amos Singletary wrote to the Massachusetts Gazette expressing views that many western farmers shared:

“These lawyers and men of learning, and moneyed men, that talk so finely, and gloss over matters so smoothly, to make us poor, illiterate people swallow down the pill, expect to get into Congress themselves; they expect to be managers of this Constitution, and get all the power and all the money into their own hands, and then they will swallow up all us little folks, like the great Leviathan, Mr.  President; yes, just like the whale swallowed up Jonah.”
 
 

Differing Viewpoints

Should the Majority Rule?

James Madison argued persuasively for the Constitution’s ratification.  In The Federalist #10, Madison explained that the Constitution would prevent the effects of faction—the self-seeking party spirit of a democracy.  In contrast, Thomas Jefferson argued that the will of the majority would thwart the tyranny of oppressive government.

James Madison opposes majority rule:

“When a majority is included in a faction, the form of popular government... enables it to sacrifice to its ruling passion or interest both the public good and the rights of other citizens.

...[A] pure democracy ...can admit of no cure for the mischiefs of faction [and has always] been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property....

A republic, by which I mean a government in which the scheme of representation takes place...  promises the cure for which we are seeking....

The effect of [a republic] is, on the one hand, to refine and enlarge the public views, by passing them through the medium of a chosen body of citizens, whose wisdom may best discern the true interest of their country, and whose patriotism and love of justice will be least likely to sacrifice it to temporary or partial considerations.”
 

Thomas Jefferson defends majority rule:

“I own I am not a friend to a very energetic government.  It is always oppressive.  The late rebellion in Massachusetts has given more alarm than I think it should have done.  Calculate that one rebellion in 13 states in the course of 11 years, is but one for each state in a century & a half.  No country should be so long without one....  After all, it is my principle that the will of the Majority should always prevail.  If they approve the proposed [Constitution] in all its parts, I shall concur in it chearfully, in hopes that they will amend it whenever they shall find it works wrong....  Above all things I hope the education of the common people will be attended to; convinced that on their good sense we may rely with the most security for the preservation of a due degree of liberty.”
 
 

GOVERNMENT
The Federalist

Although many influential American leaders opposed the new Constitution, several factors worked against the Antifederalists.  First of all, their campaign was a negative one.  The Federalists presented a definite program to meet the nation’s problems.  Although the Antifederalists complained that the Constitution failed to protect basic rights, they had nothing to offer in its place.

The Federalists were also better organized than their opponents.  Most of the nation’s newspapers supported them.  The Federalists were able to present a very convincing case in their speeches, pamphlets, and debates in state conventions.

The Federalists’ arguments for ratification were summarized in The Federalist —a collection of 85 essays written by James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and John Jay.  Under the joint pen name of Publius, the three men published most of the essays in New York newspapers in late 1787 and early 1788 before collecting them in The Federalist.

The essays explained how the new Constitution worked and why it was needed.  They were very influential.  Even today, judges, lawyers, legislators, and historians rely upon The Federalist to help them interpret the Constitution and understand what the original framers intended.

Summarizing
Which groups of people tended to support the new Constitution?
 

The Fight for Ratification

As the ratifying conventions began to gather, the Federalists knew that they had clear majorities in some states but that the vote was going to be much closer in others, including the large and important states of Massachusetts, Virginia, and New York.

The first state conventions took place in December 1787 and January 1788.  Although Delaware, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Georgia, and Connecticut all quickly ratified the Constitution, the most important battles still lay ahead.

Ratification in Massachusetts

In Massachusetts, opponents of the Constitution held a clear majority when the convention met in January 1788.  They included the great patriot Samuel Adams.  Federalists moved quickly to meet Adams’s objections to the Constitution.

They promised to attach a bill of rights to the Constitution once it was ratified.  They also agreed to support an amendment that would reserve for the states all powers not specifically granted to the federal government.  These concessions, in combination with the fact that most artisans sided with the Federalists, persuaded Adams to vote for ratification.  In the final vote, 187 members of the convention voted in favor of the Constitution while 168 voted against it.

By the end of June 1788, Maryland, South Carolina, and New Hampshire had ratified the Constitution.  The Federalists had reached the minimum number of states required to put the new Constitution into effect, but Virginia and New York still had not ratified.  Without the support of these two large states, many feared the new government would not succeed.

Virginia and New York George Washington and James Madison presented strong arguments for ratification to the Virginia convention.  Patrick Henry, Richard Henry Lee, and other Antifederalists made several strong arguments against it.  In the end, Madison’s promise to add a bill of rights won the day for the Federalists.

In New York, two-thirds of the members elected to the state convention, including Governor George Clinton, were Antifederalists.  The Federalists, led by Alexander Hamilton and John Jay, managed to delay the final vote until news arrived that New Hampshire and Virginia had both ratified the Constitution and that the new federal government was now in effect.  If New York refused to ratify, it would be in a very awkward position.  It would have to operate independently of all of the surrounding states.  This argument convinced enough Antifederalists to change sides.  The vote was very close, 30 to 27, but the Federalists won.

By July 1788, all the states except Rhode Island and North Carolina had ratified the Constitution.  Because ratification by nine states was all that the Constitution required, the new government could be launched without them.  In mid-September 1788, the Confederation Congress established a timetable for the election of the new government.  It chose March 4, 1789, as the date for the first meeting of the new Congress.

The two states that had held out finally ratified the Constitution after the new government was in place.  North Carolina waited until a bill of rights had actually been proposed, then voted to ratify the Constitution in November 1789.  Rhode Island, still nervous about losing its independence, did not ratify the Constitution until May 1790, and even then the vote was very close—34 to 32.

The United States now had a new government, but no one knew if the new Constitution would work any better than the Articles of Confederation.  With both anticipation and nervousness, the American people waited for their new government to begin.  Many expressed great confidence, because George Washington had been chosen to become the first president under the new Constitution.

Examining
Why was it important for Virginia and New York to ratify the Constitution, even after the required nine states had done so?
 

REVIEW & DO NOW Answer the following questions:
?	.