Concerns Over The Constitution: Objections And Their Legacy

The US Constitution faced objections from anti-federalists who believed that a consolidated government would become corrupt and tyrannical, absorbing the legislative, executive, and judicial powers of individual states. Some argued that the extensive territory of the United States made a general government impracticable and that freedom could only be maintained through a confederacy of republics. While some objections were considered exaggerated or unfounded, others acknowledged the complexities of compromise and conciliation in the constitution-making process.

Explore related products

Some Objections To The Proposed Constitution

$18.16

U.S. Constitution: a QuickStudy Laminated Reference Guide

$6.46

An Examination Into the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution Proposed by the Late Convention Held at Philadelphia: With Answers to the ... That Have Been Raised Against the System.

$17.75

A Third Letter to the People of Ireland, on the Subject of Tythes. Wherein the Farmers Complaints, and Other Objections Against Them, are Particularly Considered. By a Friend to the Constitution

$19.95

The Constitution Explain'd in Relation to the Independency of the House of Lords: ... and an Answer to All the Objections Made to the Now-reviv'd Peerage Bill ..

$15.95

Objections Et Reponses Au Sujet De La Constitution Unigenitus (French Edition)

$35.75

Objections were deemed unfounded or exaggerated

Many objections to the Constitution were later deemed unfounded or exaggerated. Supporters of the Constitution argued that some objections were based on erroneous interpretations of the document and that others were purely imaginative.

One objection claimed that the government would become corrupt and tyrannical, consolidating power and becoming an "iron-handed despotism." However, this prediction has not come to pass, and the government has instead functioned as a democracy with checks and balances on power. Similarly, the concern that a general government was impracticable due to the extensive territory of the United States proved to be unfounded. The Constitution has successfully governed a vast country, and a confederacy of republics has not been necessary.

Another objection claimed that the Constitution was the result of compromise and conciliation, yielding to the interests or prejudices of particular states. While it is true that the Constitution was a product of compromise, it is important to recognize that this does not automatically invalidate its merits or effectiveness. The compromises made were in the interest of forming a more perfect union and promoting the common good, which has ultimately benefited the nation.

Additionally, some objections were based on exaggerated fears and prophecies. When reviewed calmly and in retrospect, some of the concerns expressed by the opponents of the Constitution appear exaggerated and overwrought. This suggests that emotions and imagination may have played a significant role in shaping these objections, rather than a purely rational analysis of the document.

It is worth noting that while some objections were indeed valid and had just foundations, many others lacked substance or were proven wrong by the course of history. The supporters of the Constitution successfully addressed these concerns through reasoned arguments, policy considerations, and a commitment to quieting jealousies and disarming resentments.

Some believed the government would become corrupt and tyrannical

Some opponents of the Constitution believed that the government would become corrupt and tyrannical. They argued that the new system would "soon become corrupt and tyrannical, and absorb the legislative, executive, and judicial powers of the several states, and produce from their ruins one consolidated government, which, from the nature of things, would be an iron-handed despotism".

This view was not without its supporters, and it was urged with force and emphasis. These individuals predicted with confidence that a government so organised would inevitably lead to despotism. They pointed to the extensive territory of the United States as a reason why any scheme of a general government was impracticable and that freedom could only be maintained through a confederacy of republics.

The objections were not without their critics, who believed that these concerns were exaggerated and based on erroneous interpretations of the Constitution. They argued that the objections were overwrought and absurd, and that they were surprised at the "futility" of some of the arguments against the Constitution.

However, it is important to note that some of the objections were acknowledged as having a just foundation. The Constitution was a compromise, and it is recognised that it was not perfect and had to balance the interests and prejudices of particular states, sometimes at the cost of theoretical correctness.

Others thought a general government was impracticable

Some of the objections to the Constitution were considered by its supporters to be exaggerated, absurd, or "overwrought". However, some objections were considered to have a just foundation. One of the main objections was the concern that a general government was impracticable. This objection was based on the belief that the extensive territory of the United States made a general government, in theory, impossible. Those who held this view argued that a very extensive territory could not be governed on the principles of freedom, except by a confederacy of republics possessing all the powers of internal government but united in the management of their general and foreign concerns. They predicted that a consolidated government would absorb the legislative, executive, and judicial powers of the states and become an iron-handed despotism. This objection was made in spite of the fact that any scheme of a general government would be carefully guarded against such an outcome.

Explore related products

Letters to William Paley, M.A., Archdeacon of Carlisle, on his objections to a reform in the representation of the Commons, and on his apology for the ... the essay upon the British constitution intro

$22.99

Federalism: A Reference Guide to the United States Constitution (Reference Guides to the United States Constitution)

$99 $110

To Defend the Constitution: Religion, Conscientious Objection, Naturalization, and the Supreme Court (ATLA Monograph Series)

$150

Justice Rehnquist and the Constitution (Princeton Legacy Library)

$120

The Judge as Political Theorist: Contemporary Constitutional Review

$32.22 $58

Religion, Law, USA (North American Religions Book 8)

$37 $41

Some objections were based on erroneous interpretations

Some objections to the Constitution were based on erroneous interpretations. For example, it was argued that the government would become corrupt and tyrannical, consolidating power and becoming an "iron-handed despotism". However, this concern has been deemed exaggerated and unwarranted in retrospect, as the system was designed to protect against such outcomes through checks and balances. Similarly, the objection that the extensive territory of the United States made a general government impracticable was refuted by supporters of the Constitution, who believed in the possibility of governing a large territory while preserving freedom. They proposed a confederacy of republics, each with internal governance powers, united in managing their foreign affairs.

Another example of an objection based on an erroneous interpretation is the belief that the Constitution would lead to a consolidated government that would absorb the powers of the individual states. This concern was addressed through amendments, ensuring that the federal government's power was limited and balanced by the states' authority. Additionally, some objections were considered exaggerated and baseless, arising from fear and imagination rather than a factual assessment of the Constitution's potential impact.

Supporters of the Constitution, including its friends, acknowledged the necessity of amendments to address certain concerns. They believed that some objections were unfounded and existed only in the imagination of those raising them. These supporters worked to quiet jealousies and disarm resentments through a large public policy approach. They recognised that the system was a result of compromise and conciliation, balancing theoretical correctness with the interests and prejudices of particular states.

In retrospect, it is acknowledged that while some objections to the Constitution had valid foundations, others were indeed based on erroneous interpretations or exaggerated fears. The complexity of the document and the compromises inherent in its creation meant that it was open to varying interpretations, leading to misunderstandings and concerns that were later proven to be unfounded.

Amendments were urged by enemies of the constitution

While the Constitution's supporters and friends denied the necessity of amendments, its enemies urged for their inclusion. These amendments were eventually incorporated into the Constitution, with ten of the twelve articles submitted by Congress being ratified by the requisite number of states. Interestingly, the amendments faced little opposition aside from the party that initially objected to them.

The friends of the Constitution supported the amendments to alleviate concerns, address resentments, and promote a broader public policy. They believed that some objections to the Constitution were imaginary or based on misinterpretations of the document. Despite this, the amendments were not without merit, as the Constitution emerged from compromise and conciliation, balancing the interests and prejudices of individual states with the common good.

The objections to the Constitution were varied and passionately debated. Some argued that the government would become corrupt and tyrannical, consolidating power and establishing an "iron-handed despotism." Others claimed that the extensive territory of the United States made a general government impracticable, predicting it would lead to destruction. These objections were not without exaggeration and imagination, but some were grounded in valid concerns.

The amendments urged by the enemies of the Constitution aimed to address these objections and improve the document. They sought to safeguard against the centralization of power, protect individual liberties, and ensure the government remained accountable to the people. By proposing and ratifying these amendments, the enemies of the Constitution played a significant role in shaping the final document and the future direction of the country.

Frequently asked questions