Omar Bennett
The road to the ratification of the US Constitution was a long and contentious one. The process began with a convention in Philadelphia in May 1787, called to address the weaknesses of the existing government under the Articles of Confederation. The convention delegates soon agreed that an entirely new constitution was needed, and a draft was signed on September 17, 1787. However, the path to ratification was not smooth, with some states opposing the Constitution on the grounds that it did not provide adequate protection for certain rights. The required number of states eventually ratified the Constitution, making it official in 1788 or 1789, but it was not ratified by all states until 1790.
| Characteristics | Values |
|---|---|
| Date of proposal | May 25, 1787 |
| Date of ratification | June 21, 1788 |
| First state to ratify | Delaware |
| Opposition grounds | Lack of protection for rights such as freedom of speech, religion, and press |
| Number of states required for ratification | 9 out of 13 |
| Date all states ratified | May 29, 1790 |
| Date Bill of Rights ratified | 1791 |
| Weakness of the Articles of Confederation | Inability to effectively regulate commerce, levy taxes, control the printing of money, settle disputes between states, or conduct foreign policy |
| Antifederalists' concerns | Violation of the amendment procedure provided by the Articles of Confederation |
| Philosophical rationale for state conventions | Making the new federal Constitution superior to any specific legislature |
| Political rationale for state conventions | Easier to obtain ratification from ad hoc state conventions |
| Number of delegates signing the Constitution | 39 out of 55 |
| Supporters of ratification | Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, John Jay, and George Washington |
| Opponents of ratification | George Mason and other older revolutionaries |
Explore related products
What You'll Learn
The Articles of Confederation were ineffective
The weakness of the federal government under the Articles of Confederation led to a sense of powerlessness and instability. The country was acting more like a collection of independent, sovereign countries, and it became clear that future stability required a stronger, more centralized government. The Articles also led to deadlocks and sectional tensions between the North and South, as the large majorities required for ratification resulted in frequent stalemates.
The Articles of Confederation also lacked a clear executive branch, which resulted in important business being bogged down by paperwork and administrative tasks. This further hindered the government's ability to effectively address the nation's problems.
The ineffectiveness of the Articles of Confederation prompted calls for a constitutional convention to reevaluate the nation's governing document. The convention, led by Alexander Hamilton and George Washington, resulted in the proposal and creation of a completely new form of government, as outlined in the U.S. Constitution. The Constitution established a federal government with more specific powers, including the authority to conduct foreign relations and regulate commerce. It also created a bicameral legislature, addressing representation disputes between the states.
The ratification of the Constitution was a lengthy and contentious process, as it required the approval of nine out of 13 states. The first state to ratify was Delaware on December 7, 1787, and the required number of states finally ratified the Constitution on June 21, 1788, making it the official framework for the government of the United States.
Delaware's Constitutional Significance Explained
You may want to see also
Federalists vs Antifederalists
The ratification of the US Constitution was a highly contested affair, with two distinct groups emerging: the Federalists and the Antifederalists. The Federalists supported the new Constitution, believing that a stronger central government was required to unify the nation, which was at that time governed by the Articles of Confederation. Alexander Hamilton and James Madison, among others, were prominent Federalists. Hamilton and John Jay even authored the "Federalist Papers" to promote ratification, addressing people's fears about a federal government.
The Antifederalists, on the other hand, opposed the ratification of the Constitution. They argued that a supreme federal government would "swallow up all the powers of the state governments", leading to tyranny. Antifederalists like Robert Yates from New York believed that states' rights and the liberties of the people would be violated under the new Constitution. They wanted to protect Americans' freedoms and believed that these were better safeguarded by state governments, as states better understood the needs of their citizens.
The Antifederalists never organized efficiently across all thirteen states, so they had to fight the ratification at every state convention. The Federalists, meanwhile, were able to shape the new Constitution, strengthening the national government at what the Antifederalists believed to be the expense of the states and the people. The Federalists also held the majority in Congress, which debated in secret whether to send the Constitution to the states with or without amendments.
The first state to ratify the Constitution was Delaware on December 7, 1787. Eventually, enough states ratified the Constitution, and it came into effect on March 4, 1789, with the first federal elections taking place before that. However, it was not ratified by all states until May 29, 1790, when Rhode Island finally approved the document.
Constitution's Role: Peace at Home
You may want to see also
State conventions vs state legislatures
The ratification of the US Constitution was a complex and contentious process. The country was governed by the Articles of Confederation, which had been designed for a newly formed nation of states acting as independent, sovereign countries. However, it became clear that future stability required a stronger, more centralized government.
The Convention decided to use state conventions instead of state legislatures as the bodies to consider ratification. A proposal to allow each state to decide its method of ratification was rejected. Using conventions philosophically represented the will of the people directly, making the new federal Constitution superior to any specific legislature. Politically, it was also easier to obtain ratification from ad hoc state conventions that would meet only once and then disband. Furthermore, eleven states had bicameral legislatures, meaning that two struggles would be necessary to obtain a single state’s adoption. Conventions also allowed prominent non-legislators to participate in the ratification debate.
The delegates themselves had violated their instructions from their state legislatures, which called for only amendments to the Articles of Confederation, not a completely new constitution. Antifederalists 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.
The Constitution was eventually ratified by all states by May 29, 1790, when Rhode Island approved the document, although the Bill of Rights was not ratified until the end of the following year.
Boosting Player Constitution: Strategies for Success
You may want to see also
Explore related products
![Founding Fathers [DVD]](https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/71f9-HsS5nL._AC_UY218_.jpg)
The need for a stronger central government
The United States Constitution was ratified in 1789, becoming the official framework for the government of the United States of America. However, the road to ratification was not without its challenges. One of the key issues was the need for a stronger central government.
Under the Articles of Confederation, the federal government was weak and faced numerous challenges in conducting foreign policy. It was unable to effectively regulate commerce, levy taxes, control the printing of money, settle disputes between states, or make treaties. This led to instability and the threat of collapse, with states acting more like independent, sovereign countries.
Alexander Hamilton, with the support of George Washington, led the call for a constitutional convention to address these issues and create a stronger, more centralized government. The convention, held in Philadelphia in 1787, resulted in the proposal of a new form of government with a federal structure and three branches: the legislative, executive, and judicial. This model aimed to address sectional tensions and provide a system of checks and balances.
The ratification process was contentious, with Federalists and Antifederalists debating the best course of action. Federalists, including Hamilton, Madison, Jay, and Washington, supported ratification and argued for the need for a stronger central government. They believed that a stronger government was necessary to address the issues faced under the Articles of Confederation. Antifederalists, on the other hand, opposed the new Constitution, arguing that it violated the amendment procedure provided by the Articles of Confederation and that it granted too much power to the central government.
Despite the opposition, the Constitution was gradually ratified by the required number of states, coming into effect in 1789. This process was facilitated by compromises, such as the promise of a Bill of Rights, and the leadership of influential figures like Washington, who urged people to support the Constitution, reminding them that amendments could be made once it was approved.
Travel Ban: 9th Circuit's Vote on Constitutionality
You may want to see also
The Bill of Rights
The absence of a Bill of Rights was a significant obstacle to the ratification of the US Constitution. The Federalists, who supported the Constitution, argued that a bill of rights was unnecessary. James Madison, a leading Federalist, initially opposed the idea of a bill of rights, believing that the Constitution did not grant the federal government the power to take away people's rights. He and other Federalists asserted that the federal government's powers were limited to those explicitly granted in the Constitution, and any powers not listed resided with the states or the people.
However, the Anti-Federalists, who were afraid of a strong centralised government, refused to support the Constitution without a bill of rights. They argued that a bill of rights was necessary to protect individual liberties and prevent government overreach. The Anti-Federalists' position gained support from influential figures such as Thomas Jefferson, who famously declared, "A bill of rights is what the people are entitled to against every government on earth, general or particular, and what no just government should refuse."
The debate over the inclusion of a bill of rights was intense and prolonged, with the Federalists and Anti-Federalists clashing during the ratification process. The issue threatened to derail the ratification of the Constitution, as some states, including Massachusetts, refused to ratify without assurances that a bill of rights would be considered. This led to the Massachusetts Compromise, in which the state agreed to ratify the Constitution on the condition that the First Congress would propose amendments, including a bill of rights.
James Madison, recognising the importance of addressing the concerns of the Anti-Federalists and the public, took the initiative to propose amendments himself. He introduced a list of amendments, known as the Bill of Rights, which focused on rights-related issues. The House and Senate debated and modified Madison's proposal, and on October 2, 1789, President Washington sent copies of 12 amendments to the states for ratification. By December 15, 1791, three-fourths of the states had ratified 10 of these amendments, which became the Bill of Rights.
The Constitution Constrains Congress: How and Why?
You may want to see also
Frequently asked questions
The initial purpose of the Convention was to amend the Articles of Confederation. However, the delegates ultimately proposed and created a new form of government.
The main opposition to the Constitution came from Antifederalists, who believed that the ratification process violated the amendment procedure provided by the Articles of Confederation. They also argued that the Constitution did not provide adequate protection for certain rights, such as freedom of speech, religion, and the press.
The state ratification process was important because it allowed for direct representation of the people's will, making the new federal Constitution superior to any specific legislature. Additionally, it was politically easier to obtain ratification from ad hoc state conventions than from legislatures that would have to give up some of their powers.
Influential figures played a significant role in the ratification process. George Washington, for example, was a strong supporter of the Constitution and believed that a stronger central government was necessary to unify the nation. He corresponded with other leaders, such as Alexander Hamilton and James Madison, and urged people with doubts to support the Constitution, reminding them that amendments could be made later.
