Running Head: Defining Debates: How the Debates of Ratification Structured the Constitution 1

Defining Debates

How the Debates of Ratification Structured the Constitution

Taylor Smith

James Madison Foundation Summer Institute

Summer 2016
Defining Debates: How the Debates of Ratification Structured the Constitution 2

Due to the conditions of the states following Independence, many Americans believed

that the nation faced a dire situation that called for constitutional reform. For example, the

incident of Shayss rebellion caused individuals like George Washington to view the powers of

the Article of Confederation as inadequate, and that this incompetence placed the nation in a

line of danger. Some believed that foreign nations like Great Britain could seize upon these faults

and lead the United States toward ruin. In other words, the spirit of 1776 and the

accomplishments of the Revolution would rest at the wayside of foreign jealousies and the

internal factions (Greene, p. 508). Prior to the ratification of the Articles of Confederation in

1781, the experiences of war shed light on the need for a change in the central government due to

the instances of legislative tyranny and various political and social conditions within states.

These weaknesses of the central government were evident because the states ignored

congressional resolutions, Congress lacked the ability to raise money for the payment of debt,

and the Continental Army became resentful that Congress could not provide them with adequate

pay (Wood, 147).

As state legislatures corrupted the virtuous qualities that were central to republicanism,

many believed that the republican experience was threatened. As a result, the special-interest

politics within the states created a combustible environment where competing factions

necessitated actions that honored the protection of individual liberties. The Framers thus called

for a Convention to suppress the democratic despotism, as well as the internal factions and

abuses of the states; this was a means of saving the Union and states from themselves (Wood, pp,

152-153). However, despite the widespread consensus for the need of governmental reforman

expectation of expanding powers to the Confederate Congress not all Americans agreed on

the best means for preserving the Revolutionary principles and the principles of republicanism
Defining Debates: How the Debates of Ratification Structured the Constitution 3

(Wood, p. 142). For pro-constitutional nationalistsotherwise known as Federalists like

James Madison, the Convention was a means of promoting a centralized government that

protected the Union against internal and external threats to liberty due to the vices of human

nature. However, the Anti-Federalists feared the consolidation of the states into the arms of a

national government because they believed that a strong central government negated the laws

and constitutions of the states that threatened individual liberties. When examining the debate

during the ratification controversy, the Federalists and Anti-Federalists were deeply divided

about the best method for preserving liberty and republican principles following independence;

however, their common goal of fulfilling the Revolution led to a radical revolution itself through

compromise with the addition of the Bill of Rights .

Sovereignty of the Governed

During the decade that followed the Declaration of Independence, American political

culture transformed as the conception of sovereignty transferred the final law-making authority

to the people through the belief in the consent of the governed. Many upheld the importance of

suffrage for the election of representatives, as well as the creation of many extra-legal bodies that

mobilized political goals. Thus, the actions of the polity enhanced the notion that sovereignty

rested in the people, and that the extension of actual representation to the people transformed the

political thought that made Federalists construct an entirely new government structure in

Philadelphia. For example, in Federalist 39, Publius contends that the consent of the governed

was essential for the effectuation of the sustainability of the Union. Within this essay, Publius

states that, it is essential to such a government that it be derived from the great body of the

society, not from an inconsiderable proportion or a favored class of it. Reason being, the

oppressive few may take it upon themselves to establish a government that claims the title of a
Defining Debates: How the Debates of Ratification Structured the Constitution 4

republic, but that the lack of sovereignty of the people would lead to tyrannical nobles whose

power would remain unchecked (Carey and McClellan, Federalist 39, p. 194). When considering

the consent of the governed, Publius additionally argued that, because the Constitution states that

the House of Representatives was directly elected by the great body of the people, it was

comparable to the systems utilized within various states. Furthermore, with the inclusion of an

indirectly elected Senate to represent the states, as well as the President, the proposed

Constitution created a system of checks on power that guaranteed a republican form of

government (Carey and McClellan, Federalist 39, p. 194). Federalists thus believed that the

process of election became the sole criterion of representation because all governmental

officialsincluding the Senate and the Executivewere equal agents of the people (Wood, p.

62). For this reason Publius contested that the foundation of the proposed constitution, being

partly federal and partly national, provided a particular structure that sustained republican

principles within the union.

However, Brutus I of the Anti-Federalists essays proclaimed that the consolidation of the

Union under a national government did not uphold the republican principle of representation.

The reason being, the sole power authorized to Congress through the necessary and proper

clause, the supremacy clause, and the power of the purse gave Congress uncontrollable powers

that subverted the very consent of the governed. According to Brutus, the Constitution lacked

core republican principles because it created a structure where the legislature of the United

States [we]re vested with great and uncontroulable powers, of laying and collecting taxes, duties,

imposts, and excises. With this, the Anti-Federalists feared that these Congressional powers and

the consolidation of the Union would essentially dissolve the State government entirely (Storing,

pp. 110-112). Nonetheless, the Anti-Federalists believed that it was impossible for the body
Defining Debates: How the Debates of Ratification Structured the Constitution 5

politic to exercise their right to consent if the central government obtained the absolute authority

over government operations, especially those dealing with property, particularly with taxes and

the regulation of commerce.

Size of the Union

Although Federalists believed that the protection of rights was made possible through the

structure of an energetic government that relied on the consent of the governed, some perceived

that the rights themselves must lie within the heart of every constitution. According to the

Federal Farmer II, a free and good government relied on the fair and complete representation

of the people in the legislature that holds and promotes the same interests, feelings, and opinions

of the people as they are assembled (Storing, pp. 39-40). Thus, a general government, which

executed the rule of law on free principles, was a government that obtained the obedience of

the people. However, the Federal Farmer argued that the consolidation of the Union created a

government that was too far removed from the body politic; thus, rights were no longer the basis

of the Constitution, and this would lead to anarchy or despotism. Therefore, the only means of

effectuating the government would be through military forcethe destruction of freedom

(Storing, p. 42).

Despite the belief by the Anti-Federalists that the federal government created by the

constitution seemingly violated the principles of 1776which also guided the creation of the

Articles of Confederationthe new Constitution provided for an energetic government with a

single republican state that encompassed the various cultures, beliefs, and interests of the

American body politic. Thus, Federalists argued that the large size of the republic was the United

States biggest source of strength (Wood, pp. 158-166). Within Federalist 10, Publius noted that

one of the many advantages of a well-constructed union was its ability to mitigate faction and
Defining Debates: How the Debates of Ratification Structured the Constitution 6

check ambition with ambition. As a result, the consolidation of a government remedied the

disease that was often the demise of republican governmentpassion or tyranny of the

majority. Throughout Federalist 10, Publius responded to the complaints of instability, as well as

the dissent toward the Constitution as he presented the idea that, since a government could not

remove passion without usurping liberty, the structure of the Constitution and the unification of

the country would limit passions for the purpose of securing individual rights. Within a large

republic, more parties and interests were included; therefore, a tyranny of the majority was less

likely to exist due to the vast influences throughout the republic. That being said, the Federalists

believed that they secured the principles of 1776which were in danger due to the instabilities

throughout the States through an energetic government that incorporated the entire population

as a means to cure the mischiefs of faction (Carey and McClellan, Federalist 10, pp. 42-48).

Contrarily, the Anti-Federalists charged that the concentration of power imposed by the

Constitution resembled a monarchy's expense of liberty. They feared that, in order to obtain

obedience, the consolidation of the states into a vast territory would cause tyrannical actions on

behalf of the Federal government (Wood, pp. 158-166). Therefore, within the Pennsylvania

minority report, the dissent toward the Constitution rested in the belief that it would destroy the

states through consolidation, obstruct individual liberty with a lack of a bill of rights, and fail to

provide adequate representation (Storing, p. 201). The Anti-Federalists represented in this report

believed that the powers vested in the Constitution to Congress would essentially make

Americans willingly resign their rights and submit to an absolute government because the power

of taxation commanded part of the property of the people. According the Pennsylvania Minority

Report, it appeared that consolidation of the United Stated blurred the distinction between the

jurisdiction of the states and general government, thus making the states dominions of the
Defining Debates: How the Debates of Ratification Structured the Constitution 7

centralized power. The Anti-Federalists saw the vast territory of the nation as a threat to

representation; therefore, they believed that a consolidation of the Union would subvert the

consent of the governed because there would remain too few representatives who had the

opportunity to adequately know and represent the hearts and minds of their constituents (Storing,

pp. 211-214). Anti-Federalists deeply disagreed with Federalists on the consolidation of the

Union, as they believed that the Constitution, without a Bill of Rights at the core, undermined the

republican principles sought after during the Revolution (James Madison, p. 630).

Preservation through Compromise

It is important to realize that the Federalists were commitment to preserving the Union;

thus, they argued that individual rights lacked security if the national government remained

ineffectual. Despite the Anti-Federalists objections to the Constitution, due to the lack of a Bill

of Rights, Publius, in Federalist 84, argued that the Constitution itself was a bill of rights with

the provided structure of government and inclusion of protections, including no ex post facto law,

no suspension of habeas corpus, and no titles of nobility. Publius additionally regarded a bill of

rights as superfluous and dangerous. Consequently, this parchment barrier would contain

various exceptions to power which are not granted; and, on this very account would afford

colorable pretext to claim more than were granted (Carey and McClellan, Federalist 84, p. 443).

This demonstrated that not only did Federalists regard the futility of a bill of rights, but also how

the distrusted human character because the states, despite the inclusion of bills of rights, did not

guarantee limitations of legislative power. The Unions preservation depended on a system of

government that upheld republican principles of liberty through checks and balances where

ambition must be made to counteract ambition (Carey and McClellan, Federalist 51, p. 268).

Thus, the supremacy of the Constitution, and the separate and balanced departments of
Defining Debates: How the Debates of Ratification Structured the Constitution 8

government, provided an institutional structure that truly limited power (Belz, pp. 343-344; 348).

The vices of human nature ultimately necessitated the warrant of a government to control the

governed, as well as oblige it to control itself. Therefore, the admittance of a bill of rights, as

argued by the Federalists, negated the checks on mans love for power that were constructed by

the Constitution itself (Carey and McClellan, p. 268-269).

In reality, the contentions of the Anti-Federalists necessitated a full understanding for

determining the contributions their debates made in preserving the Union. Although the

Federalists believed that the states were the ultimate architect of corruption upon civil liberties

as evidenced by internal ills like Shayss Rebellionthe call for a bill of rights was a

compromise that solidified the success of ratification. In his speech on June 8th, 1789 to the

House of Representatives, James Madison addressed the dissent regarding the Constitution while

acknowledging the legitimacy of all perspectives regarding the Bill of Rights. Upon listing the

rights he regarded as proper in the Amendments, Madison explained that these rights were

necessary for upholding his promise to secure liberties within the Constitution. Madison

seemingly regarded the importance of compromise in order to confirm ratification because those

who opposed the Constitutionthe Anti-Federalistsfelt the greatest disdain with the lack of a

Bill of Rightssafeguards which they had long been accustomed to have interposed between

them and the magistrate who exercised sovereign power. Madison thus appealed to those who

believed that the Bill of Rights was an imperative barrier that guarded and upheld liberties, while

he fulfilled his purpose of ensuring full ratification (Madison, pp. 359-364). Much like the state

constitutions that succeeded the colonial founding documents created a mutual promise and

agreement of values, rights, and interest that individuals of a community, the inclusion of a bill

of rights was an expression of earlier documents. That being said, the inclusion of a bill of rights
Defining Debates: How the Debates of Ratification Structured the Constitution 9

enumerated the basic community values that the Framers defined throughout American

constitutional development. Thus, the agreement of a Bill of Rights provided a means for

obtaining obedience from the American people since the promise of liberty, with a paramount

law, was in writing (Belz, pp. 349-350).

Conclusion

The debates of the Constitutional Convention divided the Framers along constructional

lines of how to best preserve the principles of republicanism and the Revolution. However,

despite the rhetoric of both the Federalists and Anti-Federalists, this document made the natural

rights outlined in the Declaration of Independence supreme through the structure of government.

Prior to the ratification debates, the Framers feared a pulverization of the Union, but their

compromisesone being the Bill of Rightsenergized a government that expanded the bounds

of liberty. Both Federalists and Anti-Federalists questioned who held most truthfully to the

meaning of the Revolution. Echoes of the deeply divided debate have been elicited throughout

succeeding centuries, as policy makers and the polity alike carry the revolutionary spirit of the

ratification period to define the mission as a nation. Whether or not the Union will remain

perpetual is determined when each generation faces their defining moments. Like the Framers,

contemporary Americans adhere to principles of virtue and liberty, but they have varying

interpretations regarding the preservation of these ideas, and who holds the more valid

interpretation.