Simone Lawson
The ratification of the US Constitution faced resistance from Anti-Federalists, who believed that the states, not the national government, should be supreme. Notable Anti-Federalists included John Hancock, Samuel Adams, and Patrick Henry. They were concerned that the Constitution created a distant, centralised government that resembled the British government. Supporters of the Constitution feared that New York, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, and Virginia would refuse to ratify it, which would mean that all nine of the remaining states would have to, including Rhode Island, which was unlikely to do so. The greatest sticking point was the relative power of the state and federal governments.
| Characteristics | Values |
|---|---|
| Resistance from Anti-Federalists | Anti-Federalists thought that the states, not the national government, should be supreme |
| Lack of a bill of rights | The Anti-Federalist George Mason objected to the Constitution's lack of a bill of rights |
| Fear of refusal to ratify | Supporters of the Constitution feared that New York, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, and Virginia would refuse to ratify it |
| Centralised government | Skeptics pointed out that the Constitution created a centralised government that resembled the British government |
| Power of the state and federal governments | The relative power of the state and federal governments was a sticking point |
Explore related products
What You'll Learn
Resistance from Anti-Federalists
Ratification of the new Constitution encountered resistance from Anti-Federalists, who thought that the states, not the national government, should be supreme. Most prominent Anti-Federalists, including John Hancock, Samuel Adams, and Patrick Henry, had not participated in the Constitutional Convention because they did not want a stronger central government. Edmund Randolph and George Mason were delegates to the convention but had strong reservations about the final document. Mason objected to the Constitution's lack of a bill of rights.
Anti-Federalists also argued that the Constitution created a distant, centralised government that dangerously resembled the British government. They feared that the new government would not represent the interests of the people and that it would lead to the loss of states' rights.
Federalists countered these claims by insisting that the proposed design was the only way to save the country from foreign invasion or anarchy. They argued that the Confederation Congress could not pay its debts, including soldiers' pensions, and that it lacked the power to protect the country's boundaries and respect abroad. The economy was in freefall, and the states were on the verge of devolving into regional confederacies.
The relative power of the state and federal governments was a significant sticking point during the ratification process. Federalists wanted to ensure that the national government had the power to make decisions and enforce laws, while Anti-Federalists wanted to maintain the power of the states. This debate led to a compromise, with the Federalists agreeing to include a bill of rights in the Constitution to address the concerns of the Anti-Federalists.
The Constitution's Ratification: Supermajority or Not?
You may want to see also
The relative power of the state and federal governments
The greatest obstacle to ratifying the constitution was the relative power of the state and federal governments.
Supporters of the Constitution, known as Federalists, believed that the proposed design was the only way to save the country from foreign invasion or anarchy. They argued that the Confederation Congress could not pay its debts, including soldiers' pensions, and lacked the power to protect the country's boundaries. The economy was in freefall, and the states were on the verge of devolving into regional confederacies.
Opponents of the Constitution, known as Anti-Federalists, thought that the states, not the national government, should be supreme. They did not want a stronger central government, fearing that it would dangerously resemble the British government. Two Anti-Federalists, Edmund Randolph and George Mason, had been delegates to the convention but came away with strong reservations about the final document. Mason, in particular, objected to the Constitution's lack of a bill of rights.
The Federalists feared that New York, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, and Virginia would refuse to ratify the Constitution. This would mean that all nine of the remaining states would have to, and Rhode Island, the smallest state, was unlikely to do so.
The issue of the relative power of the state and federal governments was a sticking point both during the Constitutional Convention and the ratification process. Federalists and Anti-Federalists disagreed over whether a stronger central government was necessary to save the country from its problems or whether it would lead to dangerous overreach.
The Constitution: Ratification's Impact on America
You may want to see also
The lack of a bill of rights
One of the most prominent Anti-Federalists, George Mason, raised a specific objection to the Constitution's lack of a bill of rights. Mason and other Anti-Federalists feared that without a bill of rights, the national government could infringe upon the rights of the people and the states. They believed that a bill of rights was essential to safeguard the freedoms and liberties that had been fought for during the American Revolution.
The Federalists, on the other hand, argued that the Constitution did not need a bill of rights. They believed that the Constitution already protected individual liberties and that a bill of rights could potentially limit the government's ability to respond to future challenges. The Federalists also pointed out that the Constitution could be amended in the future if necessary, and a bill of rights could be added at that time.
The debate over the lack of a bill of rights highlighted the deep divisions between the Federalists and Anti-Federalists. The Anti-Federalists saw the bill of rights as a necessary check on the power of the national government, while the Federalists viewed it as an unnecessary constraint. This disagreement was a significant obstacle to the ratification of the Constitution and reflected the broader concerns about the balance of power between the states and the federal government.
Ultimately, the Anti-Federalists' concerns about the lack of a bill of rights were addressed through the addition of the Bill of Rights, which was ratified in 1791. The first ten amendments to the Constitution guaranteed a range of individual liberties, including freedom of speech, religion, and the press, as well as the right to bear arms and protection against unreasonable searches and seizures. The Bill of Rights helped to alleviate the concerns of the Anti-Federalists and played a crucial role in securing the ratification of the Constitution.
Crafting a Catchy Slogan for the Constitution's Ratification
You may want to see also
Explore related products
![Founding Fathers [DVD]](https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/71f9-HsS5nL._AC_UY218_.jpg)
The risk of foreign invasion or anarchy
The supporters of the Constitution argued that ratifying the document was the only way to save the country from foreign invasion or anarchy. They pointed to the Confederation Congress's inability to pay its debts, including soldiers' pensions, and its lack of respect and power abroad. The economy was in freefall, and the states were on the verge of devolving into regional confederacies.
The Federalists' opponents, the Anti-Federalists, countered that the Constitution created a distant, centralised government that dangerously resembled the British government. They thought that the states, not the national government, should be supreme. Most prominent Anti-Federalists, including John Hancock, Samuel Adams, and Patrick Henry, had not participated in the Constitutional Convention because they did not want a stronger central government.
The Federalists feared that New York, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, and Virginia would refuse to ratify the Constitution, which would mean that all nine of the remaining states would have to. Rhode Island, the smallest state, was unlikely to do so.
The relative power of the state and federal governments was the greatest sticking point when it came to ratification.
Wyoming's Place in History: Ratifying the Constitution
You may want to see also
The risk of regional confederacies
The Anti-Federalists, however, believed that the states, not the national government, should be supreme. They did not want a stronger central government and thought that the Constitution dangerously resembled the British government.
The supporters of the Constitution feared that New York, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, and Virginia would refuse to ratify it. This would mean that all nine of the remaining states would have to, and Rhode Island, the smallest state, was unlikely to do so.
The relative power of the state and federal governments was the greatest sticking point when it came to ratification. The Anti-Federalists wanted to ensure that the states retained their power and autonomy, while the Federalists believed that a strong central government was necessary to protect the country and its citizens.
The debate over ratification was a complex and contentious issue, with valid arguments on both sides. Ultimately, the Federalists prevailed, and the Constitution was ratified, creating a more unified and centralized government for the United States.
The Constitution: Ratified in 1776?
You may want to see also
Frequently asked questions
The relative power of the state and federal governments.
The Anti-Federalists, who thought that the states, not the national government, should be supreme.
They did not want a stronger central government.
New York, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, and Virginia.
![A History of Violence (The Criterion Collection) [4K UHD]](https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/71lqpbUFtWL._AC_UY218_.jpg)
