The Constitution's Alternatives: Exploring Different Paths In History

The ratification of the US Constitution was a highly contested process. Opponents of the Constitution, known as Anti-Federalists, argued that the document did not adequately protect individual liberties and that it would lead to a concentration of power in the hands of wealthy aristocrats. They also criticised the absence of a Bill of Rights. The Federalists, on the other hand, supported the Constitution and wanted to forward it to the states with the approval of Congress. The debate centred around the question of whether there were any viable alternatives to the Constitution, with some arguing that the absence of an alternative plan made ratification the only option.

Explore related products

Alternative Tracks: The Constitution of American Industrial Order, 1865-1917 (The Johns Hopkins Series in Constitutional Thought)

$28.87 $33

Alternative Constitutions for the United States: A Documentary History (Contributions in American History)

$95

Explicit and Authentic Acts: Amending the U.S. Constitution, 1776-1995

$21.01 $55

The Case for Israel

$12.54 $17.99

Four Pillars of Constitutionalism: The Organic Laws of the United States

$48

Ringworm, Its Constitutional Nature and #

$30.95

The absence of a Bill of Rights

The Anti-Federalists proposed sending the Constitution to the states with amendments, including a bill of rights. They also wanted to indicate that the ratification process suggested by the Philadelphia Convention violated the amendment procedure provided by the Articles of Confederation and the congressional resolution of February 21, 1787, which called for a convention only to amend the Articles.

The Anti-Federalists believed that the Constitution appeared to mimic the old corrupt and centralized British regime, under which a far-off government made the laws. They argued that wealthy aristocrats would run the new national government and that the elite would not represent ordinary citizens. They feared that the rich would monopolize power and use the new government to formulate policies that benefited their class, undermining local state elites.

The Federalists, supporters of the Constitution, held a large majority in Congress and wanted to forward the Constitution to the states with the approbation of Congress. They emphasized that there was no viable alternative plan to the Constitution. The Convention decided to substitute state conventions instead of state legislatures as the bodies to consider ratification, as it would be easier to obtain ratification from ad hoc state conventions that would meet only once and then disappear forever.

The Constitution appeared to mimic the old corrupt and centralized British regime

The Constitution was criticised for appearing to mimic the old corrupt and centralised British regime. Anti-Federalists argued that the new national government would be run by wealthy aristocrats, and that the elite would not represent ordinary citizens. They believed that the rich would monopolise power and use the new government to formulate policies that benefited their class, which would also undermine local state elites. Anti-Federalists also criticised the absence of a Bill of Rights, arguing that the Constitution did not adequately protect individual liberties.

The Anti-Federalists' alternative to the Constitution was to send it to the states with amendments, including a Bill of Rights. They also wanted to indicate that the ratification process suggested by the Philadelphia Convention violated the amendment procedure provided by the Articles of Confederation and the congressional resolution of February 21, 1787, which called for the Convention only to amend the Articles.

The delegates themselves had violated their own instructions from their state legislatures, which also called for only amendments to the Articles, not a completely new constitution. The Anti-Federalists proposed to substitute state conventions instead of state legislatures as the bodies to consider ratification. This would make the new federal Constitution superior to any specific legislature, and it would be easier to obtain ratification from ad hoc state conventions that would meet only once and then disappear forever, as opposed to having legislatures consider giving up some of their own powers.

However, it is important to note that the debate over ratification was complex and influenced by various factors, including region, class, generation, and economic circumstances. There was no clear line between supporters and opponents of ratification, and voters and elected delegates did not fall neatly into any categories.

The Antifederalists' proposal to send the Constitution to the states with amendments

The Antifederalists proposed that the Constitution be sent to the states with amendments, including a bill of rights. This was suggested by Richard Henry Lee of Virginia. The Antifederalists also wanted to indicate that the ratification process suggested by the Philadelphia Convention violated the amendment procedure provided by the Articles of Confederation and the congressional resolution of 21 February 1787, which called for the Convention only to amend the Articles.

The Antifederalists believed that the Constitution did not adequately protect individual liberties 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 Antifederalists' proposal was opposed by the Federalists, who were supporters of the Constitution and wanted to forward it to the states with the approbation of Congress. The Federalists argued that there was no viable alternative plan to the Constitution.

The Convention decided to substitute state conventions instead of state legislatures as the bodies to consider ratification. A proposal to allow each of the states their own discretion in deciding its method of ratification was rejected.

Explore related products

Practical Equality: Forging Justice in a Divided Nation

$14.56 $27.95

The Impossible Machine: A Genealogy of South Africa's Truth and Reconciliation Commission

$37.95 $39.95

Post-Apartheid Community-Based Activism: Mandla Majola and the Struggle for Social, Economic, and Health Equity (Alternatives and Futures: Cultures, Practices, Activism and Utopias)

$119.99

The Rise of the Constitutional Alternative to Soviet Rule in 1918

$45 $67.5

Saving Progressive Christianity to Save the Planet

$5.73 $18.99

Imperial Reconstruction 1763-1840: The Evolution of Alternative Systems of Colonial Government; Select Documents on the Constitutional History of the British Empire and Commonwealth Volume III (Documents in Imperial History)

$109

The Antifederalists' argument that the ratification process suggested by the Philadelphia Convention violated the amendment procedure

The Antifederalists also argued that the Constitution appeared to mimic the old corrupt and centralised British regime, under which a far-off government made the laws. They believed that wealthy aristocrats would run the new national government and that the elite would not represent ordinary citizens. They also criticised the scheme of representation as being too limited and not reflective of the people.

The Federalists, on the other hand, supported the Constitution and wanted to forward it to the states with the approbation of Congress. They argued that there was an absence of any viable alternative plan. The Convention decided to substitute state conventions instead of state legislatures as the bodies to consider ratification. This process would make the new federal Constitution superior to any specific legislature and would be easier to obtain ratification from ad hoc state conventions.

The Federalists' argument that there was an absence of any viable alternative plan

Opponents of ratification, the Antifederalists, proposed sending the Constitution to the states with amendments, including a bill of rights. They also argued that the ratification process suggested by the Philadelphia Convention violated the amendment procedure provided by the Articles of Confederation and the congressional resolution of February 21, 1787, which called for the Convention only to amend the Articles.

The Antifederalists' proposal was rejected, and the Convention decided to substitute state conventions instead of state legislatures as the bodies to consider ratification. This process would make the new federal Constitution superior to any specific legislature, and it would be easier to obtain ratification from ad hoc state conventions that would meet only once and then disappear forever, as opposed to having legislatures consider giving up some of their own powers.

The Federalists' argument that there was no viable alternative plan to not ratifying the Constitution was supported by the fact that there was no clear consensus among voters and elected delegates, who did not fall neatly into any categories such as creditors/debtors, cosmopolitans/provincials, easterners/westerners, slaveholders/non-slaveholders, urban/rural, or merchants/farmers.

Frequently asked questions