Federalism: Views On Ratifying The Constitution

The ratification of the US Constitution sparked an intense national debate between two factions: the Federalists, who supported the Constitution, and the Anti-Federalists, who opposed it. Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay argued in The Federalist Papers that the Constitution would give the federal government the necessary powers to be strong and effective for the country as a whole. Opponents argued that too much power invested in the central government, unrestrained by a bill of rights, would lead to tyranny and corruption.

Explore related products

Ratification: The People Debate the Constitution, 1787-1788

$13.2 $24

Federalists and Antifederalists: The Debate Over the Ratification of the Constitution (Constitutional Heritage Series)

$35.48 $50

The Debate on the Constitution : Federalist and Antifederalist Speeches, Articles, and Letters During the Struggle over Ratification : Part One, September 1787-February 1788 (Library of America)

$32.82 $42.5

The Debate on the Constitution: Federalist and Anti-Federalist Speeches, Articles, and Letters During the Struggle over Ratification 1787-1788: A Library of America Boxed Set

$79.05 $85

The Debate on the Constitution : Federalist and Antifederalist Speeches, Articles and Letters During the Struggle over Ratification, Part Two: January to August 1788 (Library of America)

$39 $42.5

The Debate on the Constitution: Federalist and Anti-Federalist Speeches, Articles, and Letters During the Struggle over Ratification 1787-1788 ( Complete )

$15

Federalists supported the Constitution, arguing it provided a necessary framework for a strong, effective central government

Opponents of the Constitution, the Anti-Federalists, argued that too much power invested in the central government, unrestrained by a bill of rights, would lead to tyranny and corruption. George Mason was one such opponent, and his objections are recorded in "Federalist No. 51". Alexander Hamilton's Plan of Government speech also provides insight into the views of the Federalists.

Anti-Federalists opposed the Constitution, believing it would lead to tyranny and corruption

The ratification of the US Constitution sparked an intense national debate between Federalists, who supported the Constitution, and Anti-Federalists, who opposed it. Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay were among the Federalists who argued that the Constitution would give the federal government the necessary powers to be strong and effective for the country as a whole. They believed that the checks and balances built into the Constitution would prevent any one branch of government from becoming too powerful.

Anti-Federalists, however, feared that too much power invested in the central government, unrestrained by a bill of rights, would lead to tyranny and corruption. They believed that the Constitution would enable the government to infringe on individual liberties and consolidate power at the expense of the states. George Mason, for instance, objected to the Constitution, and his views were influential in shaping the Anti-Federalist perspective.

The debate over ratifying the Constitution reflected a fundamental disagreement about the role of the federal government and the balance of power between the states and the central authority. Anti-Federalists advocated for a weaker central government and greater power for the states, while Federalists sought to establish a stronger federal presence to unify the nation, protect against foreign threats, and manage domestic affairs effectively.

The ratification process, therefore, became a pivotal moment in American history, shaping the country's political trajectory and defining the relationship between the federal government and the states. The intense discussions and disagreements surrounding the Constitution highlighted the diverse perspectives and priorities of Americans as they navigated the formation of their nation's foundational document.

George Mason's Objections to the Constitution

George Mason was an Anti-Federalist who opposed the ratification of the Constitution. He urged his fellow delegates to add a bill of rights to the Constitution, but his motion was defeated unanimously. He refused to sign the proposed Constitution and continued to voice his concerns at the Virginia Ratification convention.

Mason's Anti-Federalism was unpopular in Fairfax County, so he ran in Stafford County for a seat in the convention called to consider the ratification of the Constitution. He won, and at the Richmond convention of 1788, he shared leadership of the Anti-Federalist forces with Patrick Henry. The convention voted 89 to 79 to approve the Constitution, but also recommended that Congress consider numerous amendments. Mason doubted that Congress would approve meaningful revisions, and he largely retired from public life after the convention.

However, he was partially reconciled to the new government when James Madison shepherded a series of amendments through the first session of the new Congress. Mason deserves credit for helping create the political momentum that led to the adoption of what became the federal Bill of Rights. Along with Madison, he is called the "Father of the United States Bill of Rights".

Explore related products

The Fate of the Revolution: Virginians Debate the Constitution (Witness to History)

$11.99 $17.99

The Documentary History of the Ratification of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, Volume 38: Bill of Rights, No. 2, The Public Debate, September 1787-May 1788 (Volume 38)

$95

An Anti-Federalist Constitution: The Development of Dissent in the Ratification Debates (American Political Thought)

$27.3 $42.99

The Ratification Debates: The U.S. Constitution (Audio Classics)

$18

The Documentary History of the Ratification of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, Volume 39: Bill of Rights, No. 3, The Public Debate, 4 June-31 December 1788 (Volume 39)

$95

All You Want to Know About the United States Constitution: The Constitutional Convention and the Ratification Debates

$15.99 $25

Alexander Hamilton's Plan of Government speech

Hamilton argued that the Constitution provided a necessary framework for a strong and effective central government. He believed that a strong central government was essential for unifying the nation, protecting against foreign threats, and managing domestic affairs. He trusted that the checks and balances built into the Constitution would prevent any one branch of government from becoming too powerful.

Hamilton and the Federalists saw the Constitution as a way to create a more unified and effective nation. They believed that it would provide a strong foundation for the country and help to protect its citizens. In their view, the Constitution was a necessary step towards creating a more stable and prosperous future for the United States.

Opponents of ratification, known as the Anti-Federalists, had a different viewpoint. They argued that too much power invested in the central government, unrestrained by a bill of rights, would lead to tyranny and corruption. They feared that the Constitution would give the government too much power and that it would be used to oppress the people rather than protect them.

The debate between the Federalists and Anti-Federalists was intense and passionate, with both sides presenting compelling arguments. Ultimately, the Constitution was ratified, and it became the foundation of the American government. Hamilton's speech, along with the contributions of other Federalists and Anti-Federalists, played a significant role in shaping the course of American history and the development of its political system.

George Washington's support for the Constitution, despite his opposition to political parties and divisions

George Washington, despite his opposition to political parties and divisions, fully supported the ratification of the Constitution. He believed that the Constitution was the result of "a spirit of amity and of that mutual deference and concession which the peculiarity of our political situation rendered indispensable". Washington's support was key to the ratification of the newly proposed Constitution.

Washington's opinions concerning the plans and compromises of the Convention were the subject of much speculation. While Federalists readily used Washington's image as support for the ratification of the Constitution, the public wanted to know what he thought of the proceedings. Washington said or wrote little publicly, but his private letters reveal that he supported the Constitution. In one such letter, he wrote that the Constitution provided a "viable method of correcting problems that might become apparent after the Constitution was implemented".

Washington's support for the Constitution was not without its critics. Antifederalists lamented that since Washington was not an experienced legislator, he had been duped by cunning politicians bent on adopting a dangerous form of government.

The ratification process sparked an intense national debate between two factions: the Federalists, who supported the Constitution, and the Anti-Federalists, who opposed it. The Federalists argued that the Constitution provided a necessary framework for a strong, effective central government capable of unifying the nation, protecting against foreign threats, and managing domestic affairs. They believed the checks and balances built into the Constitution would prevent any one branch of government from becoming too powerful. Opponents argued that too much power invested in the central government, unrestrained by a bill of rights, would lead to tyranny and corruption.

Frequently asked questions