The Constitution's Ratification: Understanding Citizen Influence

The ratification of the Constitution was a complex process that occurred before and during the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia in May 1787. The greatest source of dissatisfaction with the Constitution was that it did not guarantee the protection of individual liberties, such as the right to a jury trial and the right to bear arms. Some citizens also feared the loss of their traditional rights and the violation of their liberties, which led many of the Constitution's opponents to call for a bill of rights and to refuse to ratify the document without one. The relative power of the state and federal governments was another sticking point, with many resisting the increase of national government powers at the expense of the states. The state conventions played a crucial role in informing the public about the proposed new government and providing a forum for proponents and opponents to articulate their ideas.

Explore related products

Ratification: The People Debate the Constitution, 1787-1788

$13.2 $24

The Documentary History of the Ratification of the Constitution, Volume 1: Constitutional Documents and Records 1776-1787 (Volume 1)

$95

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

$35.48 $50

The Documentary History of the Ratification of the Constitution, Volume 12: Ratification of the Constitution by the States, Maryland, No. 1 (Volume 12)

$95

Mapping the Constitution: The Cartographic History of the Ratification of the Constitution

$25.07 $40

Slavery's Constitution: From Revolution to Ratification

$17.1 $19.99

The Constitution did not guarantee protection of individual liberties

The first steps in ratifying the new constitution occurred before and during the meeting of the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia in May 1787. A widespread, uncoordinated campaign took place throughout the country to convince the people that the Articles of Confederation needed to be revised to maintain the Union. The ratifying conventions served the function of informing the public of the provisions of the proposed new government, and as forums for proponents and opponents to articulate their ideas before the citizenry.

The greatest sticking point when it came to ratification was the relative power of the state and federal governments. The framers of the Constitution believed that without the ability to maintain and command an army and navy, impose taxes, and force the states to comply with laws passed by Congress, the young nation would not survive for very long. But many people resisted increasing the powers of the national government at the expense of the states. Virginia’s Patrick Henry, for example, feared that the newly created office of president would place excessive power in the hands of one man.

The relative power of the state and federal governments

State governments had given jury trials to residents charged with violating the law and allowed their residents to possess weapons for their protection. Some had also practiced religious tolerance. However, the Constitution did not contain reassurances that the federal government would do the same. Although it provided for habeas corpus and prohibited both a religious test for holding office and granting noble titles, some citizens feared the loss of their traditional rights and the violation of their liberties. This led many of the Constitution's opponents to call for a bill of rights and to refuse to ratify the document without one.

The state conventions served as forums for proponents and opponents to articulate their ideas before the citizenry. State conventions, not Congress, were the agents of ratification. This approach ensured that the Constitution's authority came from representatives of the people specifically elected for the purpose of approving or disapproving the charter, resulting in a more accurate reflection of the will of the electorate.

The new nation was to be a republic in which power was held by the people through their elected representatives. It was considered appropriate to leave the ultimate acceptance or rejection of the Constitution to the people.

The Articles of Confederation needed to be revised to maintain the Union

The Articles of Confederation were the first constitution of the United States, adopted in 1781. They established a weak national government with limited powers, which was unable to maintain and command an army and navy, impose taxes, or force the states to comply with laws passed by Congress. This led to the belief that the young nation would not survive for very long, and so the Articles needed to be revised to strengthen the national government.

The greatest source of dissatisfaction with the Constitution was that it did not guarantee the protection of individual liberties. State governments had given jury trials to residents charged with violating the law and allowed their residents to possess weapons for their protection. Some had practiced religious tolerance as well. The Constitution, however, did not contain reassurances that the federal government would do so, and some citizens feared the loss of their traditional rights and the violation of their liberties. This led many of the Constitution’s opponents to call for a bill of rights and to refuse to ratify the document without one.

The relative power of the state and federal governments was another major issue. The framers of the Constitution believed that the national government needed more power to maintain the Union, but many people resisted increasing the powers of the national government at the expense of the states. For example, Virginia’s Patrick Henry feared that the newly created office of president would place excessive power in the hands of one man.

Explore related products

The Documentary History of the Ratification of the Constitution, Volume 11: Ratification of the Constitution by the States, Maryland, No. 1 (Volume 11)

$95

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

The Documentary History of the Ratification of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, Volume 40: Bill of Rights, No. 4, 1 January-31 August 1789 (Volume 40)

$95

The Documentary History of the Ratification of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, Volume 41: Bill of Rights, No. 5 (Volume 41)

$95

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 Framing and Ratification of the Constitution

$69.99

The Constitution was produced in secrecy

The state conventions that followed the Convention served to inform the public of the provisions of the proposed new government. They also provided a forum for proponents and opponents to articulate their ideas. The state conventions, rather than Congress, were the agents of ratification, meaning that the Constitution's authority came from representatives of the people specifically elected to approve or disapprove of the charter.

The secrecy of the Constitution's production was a significant issue, as it meant that citizens were not involved in the initial drafting process. This may have contributed to the sense of dissatisfaction and concern among those who feared the loss of their rights and liberties. The state conventions, therefore, played a crucial role in addressing these concerns and ensuring that the will of the electorate was reflected in the final ratification of the Constitution.

Citizens feared the loss of their traditional rights

The ratification of the Constitution was a contentious issue, with many citizens fearing the loss of their traditional rights. The Constitution did not guarantee the protection of individual liberties, and some citizens were concerned that the federal government would not uphold their rights and would violate their liberties. State governments had given jury trials to residents charged with violating the law and allowed them to possess weapons for protection, but the Constitution did not contain reassurances that the federal government would do the same. This led many of the Constitution's opponents to call for a bill of rights and to refuse to ratify the document without one.

The relative power of the state and federal governments was also a significant point of contention. The framers of the Constitution believed that the young nation would not survive for long without the ability to maintain and command an army and navy, impose taxes, and force the states to comply with laws passed by Congress. However, many people resisted increasing the powers of the national government at the expense of the states. For example, Virginia's Patrick Henry feared that the newly created office of president would place too much power in the hands of one man.

The state conventions played a crucial role in informing the public about the provisions of the proposed new government and served as forums for proponents and opponents to articulate their ideas. State conventions, not Congress, were the agents of ratification, ensuring that the Constitution's authority came directly from representatives of the people elected specifically for that purpose. This reflected the will of the electorate and allowed citizens to have a say in the ratification process, even if they feared the loss of their traditional rights.

Frequently asked questions