Malcolm Rivera
The strongest criticism against the new constitution came from the Anti-Federalists, who believed that the national government under the new constitution would be too strong, with a centralized rather than federal government. They also argued for the necessity of a bill of rights to guarantee specific liberties, which was not included in the new constitution. Led by Patrick Henry of Virginia, the Anti-Federalists worried that the position of president might evolve into a monarchy. They published a series of articles and delivered numerous speeches against the ratification of the Constitution, which have come to be known as The Anti-Federalist Papers.
| Characteristics | Values |
|---|---|
| Lack of a declaration or bill of rights | The new constitution was not prefaced with a declaration or bill of rights, unlike many state counterparts. |
| Ratification process | Critics opposed the convention that the new constitution would go into effect when ratified by 9 or more of the 13 states, instead of requiring unanimous state legislative consent to amendments. |
| Centralized government | Anti-Federalists believed the new constitution provided for a centralized rather than federal government, concentrating too much power in the national government. |
| Monarchy | Anti-Federalists, led by Patrick Henry, worried that the position of president might evolve into a monarchy. |
| Self-interested officeholders | Critics accused supporters of the new constitution of being self-interested officeholders seeking to retain their powerful positions rather than acting in the country's best interests. |
| Exclusion of marginalized groups | The new constitution excluded Black and indigenous people, women, and other marginalized groups from the promise of freedom and equality. |
Explore related products
What You'll Learn
- No bill of rights
- State officeholders were criticised for opposing the Constitution to retain their lucrative and powerful positions
- The new constitution excluded Black and indigenous people, women, and other marginalised groups
- Federalists argued that a bill of rights was dangerous as any listing of rights could be interpreted as exhaustive
- Anti-Federalists published articles and speeches against the ratification of the Constitution
No bill of rights
One of the strongest criticisms against the new Constitution during the ratification debates in the late 1780s was the absence of a bill of rights. This criticism was so significant that it almost prevented the Constitution's ratification, and it led to the eventual addition of the first ten amendments, collectively known as the Bill of Rights.
The Anti-Federalists, who were opposed to the ratification of the Constitution, argued that the document as drafted did not sufficiently protect the inherent rights of citizens. They believed that a bill of rights was essential to safeguard individual liberties and prevent government overreach. The Federalists, on the other hand, initially disagreed on the necessity of a bill of rights, arguing that the Constitution's enumeration of federal powers implicitly protected individual rights by limiting the scope of government authority.
The Anti-Federalists' concerns about the lack of a bill of rights were multifaceted. Firstly, they argued that without explicit guarantees of freedoms, the government could infringe on the natural rights of citizens. They feared that the absence of a bill of rights left the door open for tyranny and oppression, as had been experienced under British rule. The Anti-Federalists believed that a written enumeration of rights was necessary to define and limit the powers of the federal government, ensuring that certain fundamental rights were beyond its reach.
Secondly, the Anti-Federalists criticized the new Constitution for not adequately protecting the rights of the states and the people. They argued that the Constitution, as drafted, created a strong central government that could potentially usurp powers reserved for the states and infringe on the rights of individual citizens. The Anti-Federalists believed that a bill of rights was necessary to preserve the balance of power between the federal government and the states, and to safeguard the rights of the people from potential federal overreach.
One of the most prominent Anti-Federalist critics, Roger Sherman, argued that the Constitution should "contain a bill of rights, providing clearly and precisely for freedom of religion, freedom of the press, protection against standing armies, and against searches and seizures." He and other Anti-Federalists believed that these freedoms were fundamental to a just and free society and needed to be explicitly guaranteed in the Constitution.
The criticism over the lack of a bill of rights played a significant role in shaping public opinion during the ratification debates. Eventually, the Federalists, led by James Madison, conceded to the demand for a bill of rights to ensure the Constitution's ratification. Madison, who would later become the fourth President of the United States, You may want to see also The criticism that "state officeholders were criticised for opposing the Constitution to retain their lucrative and powerful positions" was part of a broader campaign to discredit critics of the Constitution. This campaign began in June 1787 while the Constitutional Convention was still in session. Much of the debate took place in anonymous newspaper articles, allowing each side to insinuate about the other's motives. Critics of the Constitution were accused of being former Loyalists, enemies of liberty, or state officeholders who feared losing power. Federalists, who supported Alexander Hamilton's aggressive policies and expansive constitutional interpretations, broadened this criticism to all state officeholders who opposed the Constitution. They charged these officeholders with prioritising their own lucrative and powerful positions over the benefit of the country through the implementation of the new Constitution. This criticism was levelled at George Clinton, who was attacked in the New York Journal by "Inspector" in satirical articles. "Inspector" accused Hamilton of attacking Clinton out of vanity, wanting to see him replaced as governor by Philip Schuyler. Newspapers outside New York also criticised self-interested and scheming officeholders for their opposition to a convention that promised to create a vigorous central government. For example, the New Hampshire Spy, Salem Mercury, and Pennsylvania Gazette published articles on 7 and 8 August, respectively. On 1 September, David Humphreys of Connecticut complimented Hamilton for the "honest boldness" of his public attack on Clinton, expressing concern about "popular Demagogues who are determined to keep themselves in office at the risque of every thing". The Anti-Federalists, including some former Federalists, supported Thomas Jefferson's view favouring stricter constitutional construction and opposing Hamiltonian proposals. They published a series of articles and delivered numerous speeches against the ratification of the Constitution, known collectively as The Anti-Federalist Papers. While some Anti-Federalists publicly opposed the ratification, such as Patrick Henry and Melancton Smith, most advocated their position under pseudonyms. The new Constitution, signed by delegates at the Philadelphia Convention on 17 September 1787, replaced the Articles of Confederation, which were seen as too weak. It promised freedom to Americans while excluding marginalised groups and attempted to protect liberties through a system of separation of powers, federalism, and checks and balances. You may want to see also The United States Constitution, signed on September 17, 1787, was a groundbreaking document that promised freedom and liberty to its citizens. However, one of its most significant shortcomings was its exclusion of Black and indigenous people, women, and other marginalised communities. This omission contradicted the very values of equality and justice that the Constitution aimed to uphold. The Constitution was intended to establish a robust central government and safeguard individual liberties through a system of checks and balances. However, it failed to explicitly include and protect the rights of marginalized groups, who were already facing discrimination and injustice in American society. This exclusion sent a message that these groups were not considered equal participants in the nation's democratic process. For Black Americans, the Constitution's shortcomings were particularly stark. Despite the eventual abolition of slavery and the passage of civil rights amendments, the original document did little to address the systemic racism and oppression faced by African Americans. The Constitution's silence on racial equality allowed discriminatory practices and attitudes to persist, hindering the full realisation of equal rights for Black citizens. Similarly, indigenous people in America were marginalised by the Constitution, which failed to acknowledge their inherent sovereignty and rights to their lands. The subsequent treatment of indigenous communities, including forced removal, assimilation policies, and the violation of treaty obligations, highlights the Constitution's failure to protect their rights and cultural identity. The exclusion of women from the Constitution was also significant, as they were denied equal political and social standing with men. This exclusion contributed to the perpetuation of gender stereotypes and discrimination, and it took decades of women's suffrage movements to secure the right to vote and achieve greater gender equality. The marginalization of these groups under the Constitution had far-reaching consequences, and it was only through subsequent amendments, legal challenges, and social movements that their rights began to be recognized and protected. While the Constitution has endured and evolved, addressing these historical injustices and working towards a more inclusive and equitable society remains an ongoing process. You may want to see also The strongest criticism against the new constitution came from the Anti-Federalists, who published a series of articles and gave speeches against the ratification of the Constitution. One of their main arguments was that a bill of rights was necessary to protect individual liberties. Federalists, on the other hand, argued that a bill of rights was unnecessary and potentially dangerous. They believed that the new federal government had no authority to regulate the freedoms of the press or religion, so these freedoms could not be endangered. Federalists asserted that any listing of rights could be interpreted as exhaustive, and rights omitted could be considered as not retained. They also believed that bills of rights had historically been useless when they were most needed, offering only paper protections. The Federalists, including Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay, wrote a series of 85 powerful newspaper essays known as The Federalist Papers to combat the Anti-Federalist campaign. They charged the Anti-Federalists, including state officeholders, with trying to retain their powerful positions rather than seeking the benefit of the country through the implementation of the new Constitution. The debate over a bill of rights was a significant aspect of the criticism against the new Constitution. While the Federalists argued that the new Constitution already protected liberties through separation of powers, federalism, and checks and balances, the Anti-Federalists wanted explicit protections for individual liberties in the form of a bill of rights. Ultimately, the Federalists promised to add amendments to the Constitution specifically protecting individual liberties, and James Madison introduced 12 amendments during the First Congress in 1789. Ten of these amendments were ratified by the states and took effect in 1791, becoming what is known today as the Bill of Rights. You may want to see also The Anti-Federalists were a late-18th-century political movement that opposed the creation of a stronger US federal government and later opposed the ratification of the 1787 Constitution. Led by Patrick Henry of Virginia, they worried that the position of president might evolve into a monarchy. They believed that the Constitution, as drafted, would lead to a loss of individual liberties, an erosion of state sovereignty, and the potential for the rise of tyranny. To combat the Federalist campaign, the Anti-Federalists published a series of articles and delivered numerous speeches against the ratification of the Constitution. These writings and speeches have come to be known collectively as The Anti-Federalist Papers. The majority of the Anti-Federalists advocated their position under pseudonyms, but historians have concluded that the major writers included Robert Yates (Brutus), most likely George Clinton (Cato), Samuel Bryan (Centinel), and either Melancton Smith or Richard Henry Lee (Federal Farmer). The Anti-Federalists' opposition to ratifying the Constitution was a powerful force in the origin of the Bill of Rights to protect Americans' civil liberties. Their efforts were not in vain, as the debates and their outcome thus vindicated the importance of freedom of speech and press in achieving national consensus. Their arguments influenced the formation of the Bill of Rights, as the Federalists agreed to consider amendments to be added to the new Constitution to assuage its critics and ensure that it would be successfully ratified. The Anti-Federalists were composed of diverse elements, including those opposed to the Constitution because they thought that a stronger government threatened the sovereignty and prestige of the states, localities, or individuals. Some saw in the proposed government a new centralized and "monarchic" power in disguise that would replicate the cast-off governance of Great Britain. They advocated for a more decentralized form of government with greater protections for individual rights and stronger representation for the states. You may want to see also The strongest criticism against the new constitution was that it did not include a bill of rights. Federalists argued that a bill of rights was unnecessary because the new federal government could not endanger the freedoms of the press or religion since it was not granted any authority to regulate either. Antifederalists, on the other hand, argued that a bill of rights was necessary to protect individual liberties, especially against the federal government. The Federalists were those who supported Alexander Hamilton's aggressive policies and expansive constitutional interpretations. They believed that a bill of rights was not needed and that the state constitutions were separate from the U.S. Constitution. The Anti-Federalists were those who supported Thomas Jefferson's view favoring stricter constitutional construction and opposing the establishment of a national bank and other Hamiltonian proposals. They argued for a bill of rights and published a series of articles and delivered numerous speeches against the ratification of the Constitution. The Federalists were better organized and connected, and they ultimately prevailed in the debate. The Constitution was ratified without a bill of rights, but the Federalists promised to add amendments to protect individual liberties. James Madison introduced 12 amendments during the First Congress in 1789, 10 of which were ratified and became known as the Bill of Rights.The Constitution's Calligraphy: Exploring America's Founding Script
State officeholders were criticised for opposing the Constitution to retain their lucrative and powerful positions
TFH Cells: How They Help B Cells Fight Better
The new constitution excluded Black and indigenous people, women, and other marginalised groups
The Executive Branch: Structure and Hierarchy Explained
Explore related products
Federalists argued that a bill of rights was dangerous as any listing of rights could be interpreted as exhaustive
Electricity Hazards: Identifying Workplace Dangers
Anti-Federalists published articles and speeches against the ratification of the Constitution
Privacy Act: Understanding Personal Information Boundaries
Frequently asked questions
