Malcolm Rivera
The ratification of the Constitution was not without its challenges. 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. Anti-Federalists argued that the Constitution appeared to mimic the old corrupt and centralized British regime, under which a far-off government made the laws. They also argued that the Constitution did not contain a bill of rights.
| Characteristics | Values |
|---|---|
| The Constitution appeared to mimic the old corrupt and centralized British regime | Anti-Federalists argued that the elite would not represent ordinary citizens and that the rich would monopolize power |
| The Constitution did not contain a bill of rights | Anti-Federalists argued that the Constitution did not contain a bill of rights |
| Growing criticisms | Growing criticisms of the Constitution gave way to new challenges from sharply divided states |
| Support from key states | Supporters of the Constitution feared that New York, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, and Virginia would refuse to ratify it |
Explore related products
What You'll Learn
The Great Compromise
The divide between Federalists and Anti-Federalists was a significant obstacle. Federalists, eager to project enthusiasm for the Constitution, rushed their proposal through Delaware, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey by mid-December 1787. However, this illusion of consensus was short-lived as growing criticisms emerged, particularly from crucial states such as Massachusetts, New York, and Virginia. The support of these states was seen as essential to the ratification process, and the challenge was to address their concerns without losing the momentum for ratification.
The Federalists faced a difficult task in convincing these states to ratify the Constitution. Massachusetts, in particular, posed a challenge as it had been a seat of political radicalism and the starting point of the War for Independence. If Massachusetts rejected the Constitution, it would be difficult for advocates to claim that the Constitution fulfilled revolutionary principles. Similarly, New York and Virginia were pivotal states, and their refusal to ratify the Constitution could have dealt a significant blow to the ratification process.
The US Constitution: Creation and Ratification Explained
You may want to see also
The Three-Fifths Compromise
The Southern states, which had a large slave population, wanted slaves to be counted as whole persons for representation purposes, as this would increase their power in Congress. However, the Northern states, which had a smaller slave population, argued that slaves should not be counted at all, as they were not considered citizens.
The compromise was eventually reached, with slaves being counted as three-fifths of a person for representation purposes. This compromise allowed the Southern states to gain more representation in Congress, while also recognising the unique status of slaves as non-citizens.
Overall, the Three-Fifths Compromise was a critical challenge during the ratification of the Constitution, as it highlighted the deep divisions between the North and South, and the complex issue of slavery in the young nation.
Texas Constitution: Ratification and Its Legacy
You may want to see also
The Virginia Plan
One of the main challenges facing the ratification of the Constitution was the divide between Federalists and Anti-Federalists. Anti-Federalists argued that the Constitution appeared to mimic the old British regime, under which a far-off government made the laws. They also believed that the Constitution did not contain a bill of rights and that it would not adequately represent ordinary citizens, instead allowing the rich to monopolize power.
Another challenge was the fear that key states, including New York, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, and Virginia, would refuse to ratify the Constitution. This was a significant concern, as technically, ratification by any combination of nine states was required to enact the Constitution. If these large and influential states rejected it, it would be difficult for advocates to claim that the Constitution fulfilled revolutionary principles.
The Long Road to Ratification: The US Constitution
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 issue of how slaves would be counted
The Three-Fifths Compromise was included in Article I, Section 2, Clause 3 of the Constitution. It was derived from an approximation of the wealth that an enslaved person contributed to a state's economy, rather than a belief that enslaved people were partially human. This concept predated the Constitutional Convention and had been debated in the Confederation Congress. However, it was added to a national government document for the first time in 1787.
The compromise had important implications for the South. It gave Southern states extra representation in the House of Representatives and extra votes in the Electoral College. For example, Thomas Jefferson would have lost the election of 1800 if not for the Three-Fifths Compromise. The Constitution also included a fugitive slave clause, requiring escaped slaves to be returned to their owners, and a provision banning the importation of slaves starting in 1808.
The Constitution's Ratification: A Historical Perspective
You may want to see also
The debate between large and small states regarding representation in Congress
Small states, on the other hand, opposed this idea. They maintained that the states had always been distinct and sovereign political units and should therefore be represented equally. This was a key concern for Anti-Federalists, who believed that the new national government would be run by wealthy aristocrats who would not represent ordinary citizens.
The Federalists countered these criticisms, arguing that the House of Representatives was more democratic than the Confederation Congress. They pointed out that, under the Articles of Confederation, state legislatures determined how their delegates to Congress were elected, whereas under the Constitution, voters qualified to vote for members of their state assemblies could vote for US Representatives.
Eventually, a compromise was reached, known as the Connecticut or Great Compromise. It proposed that Congress would consist of two houses: a House of Representatives and a Senate. The House would be elected on the basis of proportional representation, while the Senate would be elected on the basis of equal representation, with each state receiving two senators regardless of its population. This compromise passed by a single vote.
Social Contract Ratification: Constitution's Birth
You may want to see also
Frequently asked questions
The supporters of the Constitution feared that New York, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, and Virginia would refuse to ratify it. This was because the Constitution appeared to mimic the old corrupt and centralized British regime, under which a far-off government made the laws. Anti-Federalists argued that the elite would not represent ordinary citizens, and that the Constitution did not contain a bill of rights.
Technically, ratification by any combination of nine states would enact the Constitution. However, Massachusetts, New York, and Virginia were essential. If Massachusetts rejected the Constitution, how could advocates credibly champion it as fulfilling revolutionary principles?
Federalists rushed their proposal through Delaware, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey by mid-December 1787, creating the perception of enthusiasm for the Constitution. They also had months to puzzle through the meanings and implications of the design, and they were able to offer credible answers to many speculative challenges leveled by critics.
