The Great Debate: Constitution Ratification Resolved

The debate over the ratification of the US Constitution in 1787-1788 was a pivotal moment in the country's history, sparking intense national discussions between Federalists and Anti-Federalists. The Federalists, led by figures like Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay, supported the Constitution, arguing for a strong central government capable of unifying the nation, countering external threats, and managing domestic affairs. On the other hand, Anti-Federalists, including Patrick Henry, opposed it, fearing a concentration of power in the federal government that would undermine states' rights and individual liberties. The Anti-Federalists demanded amendments to protect these rights, while Federalists argued for amendments only after the Constitution was ratified. The debate was resolved through compromise, with Federalists agreeing to recommend a Bill of Rights, leading to the inclusion of ten amendments, including the Bill of Rights, guaranteeing fundamental freedoms.

Explore related products

Ratification: The People Debate the Constitution, 1787-1788

$13.2 $24

Federalists and Antifederalists: The Debate Over the Ratification of the Constitution (Constitutional Heritage Series)

$35.48 $50

The Debate on the Constitution : Federalist and Antifederalist Speeches, Articles, and Letters During the Struggle over Ratification : Part One, September 1787-February 1788 (Library of America)

$32.82 $42.5

The Debate on the Constitution: Federalist and Anti-Federalist Speeches, Articles, and Letters During the Struggle over Ratification 1787-1788: A Library of America Boxed Set

$78.85 $85

The Debate on the Constitution : Federalist and Antifederalist Speeches, Articles and Letters During the Struggle over Ratification, Part Two: January to August 1788 (Library of America)

$39 $42.5

The Debate on the Constitution: Federalist and Anti-Federalist Speeches, Articles, and Letters During the Struggle over Ratification 1787-1788 ( Complete )

$15

Federalists vs Anti-Federalists

Federalists and Anti-Federalists were two opposing political factions that emerged during the debate over the ratification of the US Constitution in 1787. The Federalists supported the ratification of the Constitution, while the Anti-Federalists opposed it.

The fundamental point of contention between the two groups was the role of the national government and its relationship with the state governments and the people. Federalists, often described as nationalists, believed that the Constitution strengthened the national government, which was necessary for a strong union. On the other hand, Anti-Federalists argued that a powerful national government would come at the expense of the states' rights and the liberties of the people.

The Anti-Federalists never organised efficiently across all thirteen states, so they fought the ratification at every state convention. Despite their opposition, the Constitution was eventually ratified. However, the Anti-Federalists succeeded in forcing the first Congress under the new Constitution to establish a Bill of Rights to protect individual liberties, which they felt the Constitution lacked.

Even some proponents of the Constitution, like Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, shared the Anti-Federalists' concerns about the absence of a Bill of Rights. They argued that explicit protections for individual rights against the power of the federal government were necessary to prevent tyranny.

The debate over ratification reflected the regional differences between the member states of the Union, and it opened up ongoing discussions about the balance of power between the federal and state governments, which continued well beyond the ratification of the Constitution.

The role of a central government

The debate over the ratification of the Constitution centred on the role of a central government and the powers it should hold. Federalists supported the new system, while Anti-Federalists opposed it, concerned about the potential for government overreach and the loss of individual freedoms.

The concept of a central government refers to a controlling power over a unitary state. In a federal government, which the US adopted, distinct powers are delegated to various levels of government, from federal to regional, state, and local. The US Constitution's unique feature is that the central government exists due to the individual states, rather than the states existing because of the central government. This is a key distinction, as it means the states hold more power than the central government, which can only act within the boundaries set by the states.

The debate over ratification centred on the fear that a more powerful national government would subsume the state governments, removing the layers of accountability and representation that protect individual freedoms. This was a fundamental concern, and one that needed to be addressed before other features of the plan could be discussed.

The Federalists, who supported the new system, also recognised the need for protections against government overreach. Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, writing in October 1788–March 1789, acknowledged the "want of sufficient energy in our present confederation". They recognised the need for a stronger central government to manage "our general concerns". However, they also shared the Anti-Federalists' concerns about the lack of a Bill of Rights, arguing for explicit protections for individual rights against the central government.

To address these concerns, the Federalists proposed a declaration of rights to supplement the Constitution, guarding against abuses of power by the legislative and executive bodies. They argued for securing as many rights as possible, with the limited powers of the federal government and the jealousy of subordinate governments providing additional security.

In conclusion, the debate over ratification of the Constitution centred on the role and powers of a central government. The resolution lay in recognising the need for a stronger central government while also implementing protections for individual rights and state governments' powers. This balance of powers is a key feature of the US federal system, ensuring the central government exists by the consent of the states it governs.

State conventions

The Anti-Federalists, on the other hand, feared that the Constitution, as it stood, would lead to an overly powerful central government at the expense of states' rights. They wanted amendments to be made before ratification, to ensure protections for individual liberties and against government overreach. This was a key concern in states such as Massachusetts, where the Federalists had to propose ratifying the Constitution with nine recommendatory amendments to secure its passage.

The Virginia Convention was another important battleground. Here, influential figures like Patrick Henry opposed ratification, sharing the Anti-Federalist concerns about the potential loss of states' rights and civil liberties. The Federalists ultimately agreed to recommend a Bill of Rights, which helped sway Virginia toward ratification. Thomas Jefferson, initially an opponent of the Constitution, also came to support ratification with prior amendments, as he favoured a bill of rights.

The ratification debates in these state conventions laid the groundwork for a political culture that values compromise and civic engagement. The Federalists and Anti-Federalists disagreed fundamentally on the role of the central government, but both sides sought to protect individual rights and prevent tyranny. The outcome of these debates was a compromise that saw the Constitution ratified with the promise of a Bill of Rights, addressing concerns about the potential abuses of power by the federal government.

Explore related products

The Fate of the Revolution: Virginians Debate the Constitution (Witness to History)

$9.99 $17.99

The Documentary History of the Ratification of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, Volume 38: Bill of Rights, No. 2, The Public Debate, September 1787-May 1788 (Volume 38)

$95

An Anti-Federalist Constitution: The Development of Dissent in the Ratification Debates (American Political Thought)

$27.3 $42.99

The Ratification Debates: The U.S. Constitution (Audio Classics)

$18

The Documentary History of the Ratification of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, Volume 39: Bill of Rights, No. 3, The Public Debate, 4 June-31 December 1788 (Volume 39)

$95

All You Want to Know About the United States Constitution: The Constitutional Convention and the Ratification Debates

$15.99 $25

Amendments

The debate over the ratification of the Constitution centred on the role of the federal government and the protection of individual liberties. The Federalists, led by figures such as Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay, argued that the Constitution provided a necessary framework for a strong central government capable of unifying the nation, protecting against foreign threats, and managing domestic affairs. They believed that the checks and balances built into the Constitution would prevent any one branch of government from becoming too powerful.

The Anti-Federalists, on the other hand, feared that the Constitution gave too much power to the federal government at the expense of the states' rights and individual freedoms. They wanted to amend the Constitution before it was implemented to include explicit protections for individual rights, which they believed would mitigate any tendencies towards consolidation and tyranny. Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, for instance, shared these concerns about the lack of a Bill of Rights in the original draft.

During the ratification debates, the Federalists realised that they would need to make concessions to secure the support of key states like Virginia and New York. In Virginia, Federalists agreed to recommend a Bill of Rights, which ultimately helped sway skeptics and led to Virginia's ratification of the Constitution on June 25, 1788. New York followed on July 26, 1788, after a similarly intense and narrow debate.

The first federal Congress, which included representatives from these states, was instructed to strive for congressional approval of the recommended amendments under Article V of the Constitution. James Madison, who had initially been hesitant about the necessity of a Bill of Rights, took the lead in drafting the amendments. In 1791, ten amendments were ratified, collectively known as the Bill of Rights, guaranteeing fundamental freedoms such as speech, religion, and the press, as well as protections against government overreach.

Thus, the debate over ratification and the resulting amendments helped lay the groundwork for a political culture that values compromise, civic engagement, and the protection of individual rights.

Individual rights

The debate over the ratification of the US Constitution centred on the issue of individual rights, with citizens concerned about the lack of a Bill of Rights in the draft presented to the states. The Federalists, or proponents of the new system, argued that a Bill of Rights was unnecessary as the federal government had no power to infringe on individual liberty. They believed that the Constitution, as written, provided sufficient protection for individual rights. On the other hand, the Anti-Federalists, or those opposed to the new system, feared the concentration of power in a strong central government and demanded explicit protections for individual rights. They believed that a Bill of Rights was necessary to curtail the powers of the federal government and guarantee individual liberties.

The absence of a Bill of Rights in the original Constitution was a significant obstacle to its ratification by the states. The Anti-Federalists refused to support the Constitution without explicit protections for individual rights, and the Federalists eventually conceded to their demands. The Bill of Rights, ratified in 1791, included explicit protections for individual rights such as freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, protection from unreasonable searches and seizures, and more.

However, it is important to note that the Bill of Rights did not apply to everyone equally. For example, slavery was legal for the first 78 years after the Constitution was ratified, and slaves were governed by "slave codes" that denied them access to the rule of law and allowed for cruel and inhumane treatment. Additionally, women were considered second-class citizens, unable to vote or own property, and Native Americans were often excluded from the protections afforded by the Bill of Rights.

It took intense debates, social movements, and amendments to the Constitution for the United States to move towards a more inclusive and equitable society. The 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments, passed after the Civil War, formally ended slavery and guaranteed equal protection under the law. The 19th Amendment, ratified in 1920, granted women the right to vote. And the civil rights movement of the 1960s led to further advancements in civil rights and liberties for all Americans.

Today, the Bill of Rights remains a pivotal document in the story of American liberty, but ongoing debates continue regarding the balance of power between the federal government and state governments, and how to protect the rights and liberties of all citizens, especially those who are most vulnerable or marginalised.

Frequently asked questions