Simone Lawson
The ratification of the US Constitution was a highly contested issue, with Federalists arguing in favour of ratification and Anti-Federalists against. Federalists believed that the Constitution was the only way to save the country from foreign invasion or anarchy, as the Confederation Congress was unable to pay its debts, lacked power to protect the country's boundaries, and commanded no respect abroad. Anti-Federalists, on the other hand, argued that the central government created by the Constitution would be a threat to liberty and would take away power from the individual states. The Constitution needed to be ratified by at least nine states to go into effect, and this was eventually achieved, creating a stronger central government with a Congress, President, and national court system.
| Characteristics | Values |
|---|---|
| Unity of the nation | The Articles of Confederation had failed to unite the nation |
| Powerless government | The current government was so powerless that it would soon dissolve |
| Stronger central government | The Constitution created a stronger central government with a Congress, President and national court system |
| Foreign invasion | The proposed design was the only way to save the country from foreign invasion |
| Anarchy | The proposed design was the only way to save the country from anarchy |
| Economy | The economy was in freefall |
| Regional confederacies | The states lay on the verge of devolving into regional confederacies |
| Centralised government | The Constitution created a distant, centralised government |
Explore related products
What You'll Learn
- The Articles of Confederation were not working
- The Federalists argued that the Constitution was the only way to save the country
- The Anti-Federalists argued that the Constitution would take away power from the individual states
- The Constitution needed to be ratified by at least nine states
- The Federalists had to convince their fellow Americans that the Constitution was the best way forward
The Articles of Confederation were not working
The Articles could only be amended by a unanimous vote of the states, making it difficult to make changes. The lack of a standing army was also a problem, as there was no force available to retaliate against protesters. For example, during Shays' Rebellion, the United States needed a strong national government to put down the rebellion, but the national government was unable to do so.
The Articles of Confederation also led to a lack of respect for the Confederation Congress abroad and a weak economy. The states were on the verge of devolving into regional confederacies, and the government was so powerless that it would soon dissolve.
The Constitution was written to address these issues and create a stronger central government. It created a Congress with the power to tax, a President who would act as the nation's chief executive, and a national court system. The Federalists argued that the Constitution was the only way to save the country from foreign invasion or anarchy.
Federalism: Views on Ratifying the Constitution
You may want to see also
The Federalists argued that the Constitution was the only way to save the country
Leading Federalists James Madison and Alexander Hamilton made a case for ratification in the Federalist Papers. They believed that the unity of the nation had been tested under the Articles of Confederation and that the current government was so powerless that it would soon dissolve. They also thought that the Constitution was the best way forward for the new nation.
To go into effect, the Constitution needed to be ratified by at least nine states. The Federalists strategically adjourned the convention in New Hampshire to gain more support, and the Constitution was also overwhelmingly ratified by Maryland and South Carolina. However, the Anti-Federalists, led by Patrick Henry and George Mason, argued against ratification, believing that the central government created by the Constitution would be a threat to liberty and would take away power from the individual states.
California's Constitutional Journey: Ratification and Beyond
You may want to see also
The Anti-Federalists argued that the Constitution would take away power from the individual states
The Federalists, on the other hand, argued in favour of ratification, insisting that the proposed design was the only way to save the country from foreign invasion or anarchy. They pointed to the weaknesses of the current government under the Articles of Confederation, which they believed was so powerless that it would soon dissolve. The Federalists wanted a stronger central government with a Congress that had the power to tax, a President who would act as the nation's chief executive, and a national court system.
The ratification of the Constitution was not a straightforward process. While the Federalists believed that ratification was necessary to protect the country, the Anti-Federalists had valid concerns about the potential loss of state power and individual liberties. The Constitution needed to be ratified by at least nine states to go into effect, and this was a challenge as many states met the document with increasing skepticism. The Federalists had to strategically adjourn conventions and distribute essays to muster more support for ratification.
The debate about the proper scope of government power was a central issue in the ratification debate. The Anti-Federalists worried that the Constitution would lead to a centralised government that resembled the British government, while the Federalists argued that the current government was too weak to protect the country's boundaries and lacked respect abroad. The Federalists saw the Constitution as a way to create a stronger, more unified nation, while the Anti-Federalists feared the loss of state autonomy and the potential threat to liberty that a more powerful central government could pose.
The ratification of the Constitution was a complex and contentious process, with valid arguments on both sides of the debate. While the Federalists ultimately succeeded in getting the required number of states to ratify the document, the concerns raised by the Anti-Federalists about the potential loss of state power and individual liberties were important considerations in shaping the future of the nation.
The Constitution's Ratification: A Historical Timeline
You may want to see also
Explore related products
The Constitution needed to be ratified by at least nine states
The Anti-Federalists, on the other hand, were against ratification, arguing that the central government created by the Constitution would be a threat to liberty and would take away power from the individual states.
The Constitution was written and signed, but its ratification by the people was uncertain. The delegates had to convince their fellow Americans that the Constitution represented the best way forward for the new nation.
Leading Federalists James Madison and Alexander Hamilton made a case for ratification in the Federalist Papers. They arranged for the first thirty-six Federalist essays to be published in book form and distributed copies to friends in the hope of influencing the delegates to the New York and Virginia ratifying conventions.
The Historic Ratification of Mexico's Constitution
You may want to see also
The Federalists had to convince their fellow Americans that the Constitution was the best way forward
The Federalists also believed that the current government was so powerless that it would soon dissolve, either from a lack of support from the people or because states would no longer bother to send representatives to the Confederation Congress. The Constitution, they argued, created a stronger central government that included a Congress with the power to tax, a President who would act as the nation's chief executive, and a national court system.
However, the Anti-Federalists, led by Patrick Henry and George Mason, argued that the central government created by the Constitution would be a threat to liberty and would take away power from the individual states. They also questioned whether the Convention had exceeded its mandate to revise the Articles and why the Convention had been conducted in secret. The Federalists had to counter these claims and convince Americans that the Constitution was necessary for the country's future.
Constitutional Ratification: Florida's Percent Rule Explained
You may want to see also
Frequently asked questions
The Constitution needed to be ratified because the unity of the nation had been tested under the Articles of Confederation. The current government was so powerless that it would soon dissolve. The Constitution created a stronger central government that included a Congress with the power to tax, a President who would act as the nation’s chief executive, and a national court system.
The Federalists argued that the proposed design was the only way to save the country from foreign invasion or anarchy. They believed that the Confederation Congress could not pay its debts, including soldiers’ pensions, and lacked power to protect the country’s boundaries. They also believed that the economy was in freefall and that the states lay on the verge of devolving into regional confederacies.
The Anti-Federalists argued that the central government created by the Constitution would be a threat to liberty and would take away power from the individual states.
For the Constitution to go into effect, at least nine of the then-thirteen states would have to ratify (or agree to adopt) it.
Maryland and South Carolina were the first two states to ratify the Constitution, bringing the total to eight.
