The Debate Over the Constitution 

Lesson 1 

Those who supported the Constitution won out over the Anti-Federalists, but looking back over 237 we can gain a greater appreciation for the position that men like Patrick Henry held.  They were greatly concerned that the Federalists in Pennsylvania had gone too far.  It is striking in retrospect to see how clearly they understood the possibility that the central government would one day far exceed the limited powers stated in Article I. 

It is my hope that by revisiting the arguments for and against the Constitution, we might better appreciate the value of this wonderful document, flawed as it is. 

The Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union established a confederacy (league of friendship) among the 13 states, each of which retained its sovereignty.  Government actions which affected the citizens were almost exclusively carried out by the states.  The central government consisted of a single Congress at which each state could cast a single vote.  Most matters needed a majority of nine states. 

This Congress dealt with four kinds of business:  foreign policy, mediating disputes between states, facilitating interstate and foreign commerce and legislating for the territories. 

The three years immediately following the war brought forth many weaknesses of the central government including outright Shay’s Rebellion. 

What was unusual about the Philadelphia Convention was not so much that it was held in great secrecy, but that when it was finally sent out for ratification, it was not sent back to Congress or to the state governments.  Rather, their Constitution was to be ratified by special conventions in each state made up of delegates elected directly by the people.  Ratification by 9 of the 13 states was deemed sufficient for the new Constitution to come into effect for those ratifying states. 

A large number of delegates to Philadelphia refused to sign the final document.  Many left in open disgust rather than to dismantle the existing Articles.  Some critics called for a new convention, while others proposed amendments to the document before it was brought before the state conventions. 

The proponents of the Constitution called themselves Federalists.  They enjoyed the advantage of unifying behind the document while their opponents had nothing on paper to defend, but could only merely attack what they saw as weaknesses in the Constitution.  There was no alternative plan which could be defended.  

Hamilton and Madison’s The Federalist emerged from the New York state contest.  Although Madison was from Virginia, he was living in New York at the time as he was a member of the lame duck congress meeting in New York.  With was most advantageous for the Federalists, as Madison gave balance to the strong aristocratic tendencies of his ally, Hamilton. 

(Each Monday, I will post another short essay on the debate over ratification.)