Eleanor Finch
The ratification of the Constitution was a contentious issue, with debates taking place in homes, taverns, and on the printed page. The arguments centred on the federal principle of balancing national and state power, with some arguing that the states would lose their sovereignty in a Union of we the people instead of we the states. Others, like Jefferson, supported ratification with prior amendments, favouring a bill of rights.
| Characteristics | Values |
|---|---|
| Need for a bill of rights | The Constitution did not include a bill of rights |
| Federal principle of balancing national and state power | States would lose their sovereignty in a Union of "we the people" instead of "we the states" |
| Liberties of the people | A powerful national government would violate natural rights and civil liberties |
Explore related products
What You'll Learn
The need for a bill of rights
The ratification of the Constitution was a contentious issue, with debates taking place in homes, taverns, and on the printed page. At the centre of these arguments was the federal principle of balancing national and state power.
One of the key issues in the debate was the need for a bill of rights. Some argued that since the Constitution was supreme over state law, state bills of rights were no security. They called for a bill of rights to be included in the Constitution to protect the liberties of the people. Their appeals were rejected, and the Constitution did not initially include a bill of rights.
Thomas Jefferson, who was in Paris at the time, initially opposed ratification but later supported it with prior amendments because he favoured a bill of rights. He believed that a powerful national government would violate natural rights and civil liberties, endangering freedoms such as the right to a trial by jury and liberty of the press.
During the debate in Massachusetts, the opposition forced the Federalists to promise to consider amendments protecting the liberties of the people after the Constitution was ratified as written. This highlights the importance of the bill of rights in the ratification debate and the recognition that further protections may be needed to safeguard individual liberties.
Federalist Papers 10: Why Ratify the Constitution?
You may want to see also
The federal principle of balancing national and state power
The ratification of the Constitution was a contentious issue, with debates taking place in homes, taverns and on the printed page. One of the key issues at the heart of the debate was the federal principle of balancing national and state power.
The Constitution was supreme over state law, which meant that state bills of rights were no security. This led to calls for a bill of rights to be included in the Constitution, to protect the liberties of the people. These appeals were rejected, and the Constitution did not initially include a bill of rights.
Some argued that without a bill of rights, the states would lose their sovereignty in a Union of "we the people" instead of "we the states". They warned that a powerful national government would violate natural rights and civil liberties, endangering freedom of the press, trial by jury, and human rights more broadly.
Others, such as Washington, supported the Constitution as it was. Jefferson initially opposed it but then supported ratification with prior amendments, as he favoured a bill of rights.
In Massachusetts, the Federalists were forced to promise to consider amendments protecting the liberties of the people after the Constitution was ratified as written.
Connecticut Compromise: Constitution Ratification Enabler
You may want to see also
The liberties of the people
The ratification of the Constitution was a contentious issue, with debates taking place in homes, taverns, and on the printed page. One of the key concerns was the protection of the liberties of the people.
During the debate in Massachusetts, the Federalists were forced to promise to consider amendments protecting the liberties of the people after the Constitution was ratified. This was because the Constitution was supreme over state law, rendering state bills of rights ineffective.
Thomas Jefferson, who was in Paris at the time, initially opposed ratification but later supported it with prior amendments, as he favoured a bill of rights. He believed that without a bill of rights, a powerful national government would violate natural rights and civil liberties, endangering freedom of the press, trial by jury, and other human rights and privileges.
On the other hand, Patrick Henry warned that the states would lose their sovereignty in a Union of "we the people" instead of "we the states". He argued that a powerful national government would destroy the liberties of the people.
The ratification debate was significant because it was a national conversation centred on persuasion and reasonable negotiation, rather than force. It allowed for a discussion on the merits of the Constitution, including the need for a bill of rights to protect the liberties of the people.
Jefferson's Role: Ratifying the Constitution
You may want to see also
Explore related products
The sovereignty of the states
The Federalists, who supported ratification, promised to consider amendments protecting the liberties of the people after the Constitution was ratified. However, the Anti-Federalists, who opposed ratification, wanted a bill of rights to be included in the Constitution itself, as they believed that this was the only way to secure the rights of the states.
The ratification debate was a national conversation in which reasonable negotiation, rather than force, was used to persuade people of the merits of the Constitution. The Federal principle of balancing national and state power was at the centre of many often-contentious arguments that took place in homes, taverns, and on the printed page.
Virginia's Constitution Ratification: The Deciding Factors
You may want to see also
The role of persuasion and reasonable negotiation
The ratification of the Constitution was a national conversation that centred on persuasion and reasonable negotiation. The debates that took place in Independence Hall continued in the states, with arguments taking place in homes, taverns, and on the printed page. The Federalists were forced to promise to consider amendments protecting the liberties of the people after the Constitution was ratified as written.
The most important and radical thing about the ratification debate was that it was a debate. It was not a conversation about force, but about reasonable negotiation. The conversation centred on the federal principle of balancing national and state power.
Some called for a bill of rights to be included in the document, pointing out that since the Constitution was supreme over state law, state bills of rights were no security. Their appeals were rejected, however, and the Constitution did not include a bill of rights.
Thomas Jefferson, then in Paris, at first opposed and then supported ratification with prior amendments, because he favoured a bill of rights. Patrick Henry warned that the states would lose their sovereignty in a Union of “we the people” instead of “we the states.” He cautioned that a powerful national government would violate natural rights and civil liberties, thus destroying “the rights of conscience, trial by jury, liberty of the press . . . all pretentions to human rights and privileges, are rendered insecure, if not lost, by this change.”
The Long Road to Ratification: The US Constitution
You may want to see also
Frequently asked questions
The Constitution did not include a bill of rights, which was a concern for some people. Elbridge Gerry and another delegate pointed out that since the Constitution was supreme over state law, state bills of rights were no security.
The Constitution was ratified as written, but the Federalists were forced to promise to consider amendments protecting the liberties of the people.
Patrick Henry warned that the states would lose their sovereignty in a Union of "we the people" instead of "we the states". He also cautioned that a powerful national government would violate natural rights and civil liberties.
