The Constitution: Hard To Ratify, Why?

The ratification of the 1787 U.S. Constitution was a difficult process due to several factors. One of the main obstacles was the opposition from Anti-Federalists, who feared that the new national government would be too powerful and infringe on state sovereignty, threatening individual liberties. The absence of a bill of rights was a significant concern, as Anti-Federalists demanded explicit protections for individual and states' rights. Additionally, the number of representatives each state would have in Congress and the Supremacy Clause generated controversy. The requirement of unanimous approval from the states also slowed down the process, as smaller states refused to ratify until other states relinquished their western land claims.

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 Anti-Federalists opposed the ratification of the 1787 U.S. Constitution because they feared that the new national government would be too powerful

The Anti-Federalists were a late-18th-century political movement that opposed the creation of a stronger U.S. federal government. They were led by Patrick Henry of Virginia. They wanted a Bill of Rights to be added to the Constitution, which was their primary demand. They argued that a new centralised government would have all the characteristics of the despotism of Great Britain that they had fought so hard to remove themselves from. They also believed that the Convention had exceeded its authority in producing a new Constitution.

The Anti-Federalists were mounting an effective opposition in essays and debates. They demanded prior amendments to be sent to a second convention before they would accept the new government. During the debate in Massachusetts, opposition forced the Federalists to promise to consider amendments protecting the liberties of the people after the Constitution was ratified as written.

The Federalists, who supported the 1787 Constitution, made the case that a centralised republic provided the best solution for the future.

The Anti-Federalists also argued that a new centralized government would have the characteristics of the despotism of Great Britain

The Anti-Federalists opposed the ratification of the 1787 U.S. Constitution because they feared that the new national government would be too powerful and threaten individual liberties, given the absence of a bill of rights. They believed that a stronger government threatened the sovereignty and prestige of the states, localities, or individuals. They saw in the proposed government a new centralized and "monarchic" power in disguise that would replicate the despotism of Great Britain they had fought so hard to remove themselves from. They also believed that a large central government would not serve the interests of small towns and rural areas, as opposed to the urban interests that most Federalist delegates aligned with. They were more likely to be small farmers than lawyers and merchants and came from rural areas rather than the urban areas many federalists represented. They also argued that the Convention had exceeded its authority in producing a new Constitution, and that the Constitution lacked explicit protections for individual and states rights.

The primary barrier to ratifying the Constitution was the lack of a formal Bill of Rights

The Anti-Federalists' greatest challenge was persuading the Anti-Federalists to support the Constitution's ratification. A bill of rights was the primary demand of the anti-federalists, but it wasn't granted until much later. The Anti-Federalists also objected to the Supremacy Clause, arguing that it would make the national government overly powerful and infringe on state sovereignty.

The Federalists eventually promised to add a Bill of Rights to the Constitution, and Rhode Island and North Carolina agreed to ratify it. By May 1790, all 13 states had ratified it. Thomas Jefferson was a strong supporter of supplementing the Constitution with a bill of rights, and James Madison, despite initially opposing the inclusion of a bill of rights, eventually became an active proponent.

Explore related products

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, 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 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 Framing and Ratification of the Constitution

$69.99

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 Supremacy Clause generated significant controversy during debates over the Constitution's ratification

The ratification of the Constitution was a difficult process due to the Anti-Federalists' opposition to the document. They believed that a stronger central government would threaten the sovereignty of the states and the rights and liberties of individuals. The Anti-Federalists demanded a Bill of Rights to be included in the Constitution, which was not granted until much later.

The Supremacy Clause was a particularly controversial aspect of the Constitution during the ratification debates. The Clause states that:

> This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

Anti-Federalists argued that the Supremacy Clause would make the national government overly powerful and infringe on state sovereignty. They believed that it would force the country into "one large system of lordly government" and that it would lead to "a complete consolidation of all of the states into one". Despite these criticisms, the advocates of federal supremacy prevailed, and the Constitution was ratified in 1788 with the Supremacy Clause included.

The Convention had exceeded its authority in producing a new Constitution

The Anti-Federalists also opposed the Supremacy Clause, which they argued would make the national government overly powerful and infringe on state sovereignty. They wanted the state legislatures to have more power in the new government. The smaller states, such as Maryland, Delaware, and New Jersey, also wanted other states to relinquish their western land claims before they would ratify the Articles. This slowed down the ratification process and reflected the scope of opposition to the new Constitution.

The Convention had also exceeded its authority in producing a new Constitution because it had not followed the amendment rules of the Articles of Confederation. The ratification process was bound by the amendment rules of the Articles, which required unanimous approval from the states. The Convention had not been able to secure unanimous approval from the states, as several large states and Anti-Federalists opposed the Constitution. This reflected the Convention's failure to adequately address the concerns of all the states and their inability to reach a consensus on the new government.

Frequently asked questions