Malcolm Rivera
The ratification of the US Constitution was a contentious issue, with supporters of the Constitution calling themselves Federalists and their opponents Anti-Federalists. The Anti-Federalists were concerned that the proposed constitution represented a betrayal of the principles of the American Revolution, and that it would lead to a government controlled by wealthy aristocrats that did not represent ordinary citizens. They also argued that the Constitution did not contain a bill of rights. The Federalists, on the other hand, defended the Constitution's strengthened national government, with its greater congressional powers, more powerful executive, and independent judiciary.
| Characteristics | Values |
|---|---|
| Name | Anti-Federalists |
| Supporters of | Local state elites |
| Opponents of | Federalists |
| Feared | A betrayal of the principles of the American Revolution |
| Feared | A government run by wealthy aristocrats |
| Feared | The rich would monopolise power and use the government to formulate policies that benefited their class |
| Feared | The Constitution did not contain a bill of rights |
Explore related products
$18.65 $23
![Conspiracy Theories in American History: An Encyclopedia [2 volumes]](https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/91ATgtLVJLL._AC_UY218_.jpg)
What You'll Learn
The Anti-Federalists
The opponents of the Constitution during the year-long debates over ratification were known as Anti-Federalists. They argued that the proposed constitution represented a betrayal of the principles of the American Revolution and that it appeared to mimic the old corrupt and centralized British regime. They believed that the new government would be run by wealthy aristocrats who would not represent ordinary citizens, and that the Constitution did not contain a bill of rights.
The divide between the Federalists and Anti-Federalists is illustrated by the ratifying convention in New York, where Anti-Federalist delegate Melancton Smith took issue with the scheme of representation as being too limited and not reflective of the people. Alexander Hamilton responded by acknowledging that a pure democracy would be the most perfect government, but that it was not practicable.
The US Constitution: Ratification and Its Legacy
You may want to see also
The Federalists
The arguments of the Federalists were persuasive, and they played an active role in the ratification process. Once Virginia ratified the Constitution on June 25, 1788, New York followed suit, despite it being unclear whether the Federalists' arguments actually changed the minds of New Yorkers.
John Adams' Stance on Ratifying the Constitution
You may want to see also
The American Revolution
The Anti-Federalists had reservations about ratifying the Constitution. They were concerned that the new government would be run by wealthy aristocrats and that the elite would not represent ordinary citizens. They also argued that the Constitution did not contain a bill of rights and that it represented a betrayal of the principles of the American Revolution. The Anti-Federalists produced a body of writings, known as The Anti-Federalist Papers, which argued against the ratification of the Constitution.
The Constitution's Ratification: Understanding America's Founding Document
You may want to see also
Explore related products
The Virginia Ratification
The road to ratification, however, was not without its challenges. In Virginia, as in other states, there were two main groups with opposing views on the Constitution: the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists. The Federalists, who supported the Constitution, argued that it strengthened national government and upheld the principles of separation of powers, checks and balances, and federalism. They believed that the new government, with its greater congressional powers, more powerful executive, and independent judiciary, would bring much-needed change and progress to the young nation.
The Anti-Federalists, on the other hand, had serious reservations about the Constitution. They saw it as a betrayal of the ideals of the American Revolution, fearing that it would lead to a centralised government that mirrored the corrupt British regime they had recently overthrown. The Anti-Federalists argued that the Constitution would concentrate power in the hands of wealthy aristocrats and elites, undermining the interests of ordinary citizens and local state elites. They also criticised the lack of a bill of rights in the document.
In Virginia, the debate over ratification was particularly intense. The three most recent governors of the state, Benjamin Harrison, Patrick Henry, and Edmund Randolph, were all Anti-Federalists and strongly opposed ratification. They used their influence to rally support for their cause, presenting a formidable challenge to the Federalists. However, despite their efforts, Virginia ultimately ratified the Constitution, tipping the balance in favour of its adoption and setting the stage for the formation of a new national government.
The Constitution's Ratification: A Debate's Conclusion
You may want to see also
The Anti-Federalist Papers
The Anti-Federalists' reservations about the Constitution extended beyond political theory. They feared that the new government would be controlled by a wealthy elite, leading to policies that benefited only their class. This concentration of power in the hands of a few would also undermine local state elites. The Anti-Federalists saw the Constitution as a threat to the principles of democracy and representation, believing that it did not adequately reflect the will of the people.
The Constitution: Ratification's Impact on America
You may want to see also
Frequently asked questions
The Anti-Federalists were concerned that the Constitution would lead to a government that mirrored the old corrupt and centralised British regime, with wealthy aristocrats monopolising power and creating policies that would only benefit their class. They also believed that the Constitution did not contain a bill of rights.
The Anti-Federalists were the opponents of the Federalists, who supported the Constitution. The Federalists and Anti-Federalists engaged in often-contentious debates about the ratification of the Constitution in homes, taverns and on the printed page.
The Federalists argued that the Constitution's strengthened national government, with its greater congressional powers, more powerful executive and independent judiciary, supported the principles of separation of powers, checks and balances, and federalism.
No, the Constitution was ratified on 25 June 1788.
