The Ratification Process
Whatever high hopes the framers of the Constitution had as they left Philadelphia for a return to normal life must have been sobered by the thought of the challenges still ahead at the various state ratifying conventions. Unless nine states approved the new document, a long summer's worth of thought and struggle would go for naught.
Much more was also at stake. Indeed, it would be at the state ratifying conventions where the Constitution would have to stand on its own. With these conventions lay no less than the future of the nation.
The reception given the Constitution upon the adjournment of the constitutional convention was nothing less than overtly hostile. It became obvious to even the most casual onlookers that this document was no mere revision of the Articles of Confederation, but an entirely different document setting up a bold new form of government. The reaction was overwhelmingly negative, leading many to speculate that the Philadelphia convention had been closed in order to prevent public outcry against this dangerous course of action.
The stage was set just eight days after the adjournment of the convention when Congress, its ranks bolstered by the arrival of delegates returning from Philadelphia, passed a recommendation that the states call ratification conventions at their earliest opportunity.
Those opposed to the strong central government outlined in the Constitution appeared to be dominant both in numbers and influence. Soon known as "Antifederalists," they included such prominent names as Richard Henry Lee, Patrick Henry, Benjamin Harrison and James Monroe of Virginia, Luther Martin of Maryland and Samuel Adams of Massachusetts.
The firepower of these anti-Constitution forces even awed Madison, who had devoted so much time and effort to the Philadelphia convention. "I am truly sorry," he wrote to a New York delegate, "to find so many respectable names on your list of adversaries to the Federal Constitution."
Indeed, both sides displayed considerable strength. But the Antifederalists had a natural advantage, playing upon the experimental nature of the Constitution and the people's natural fear of anything new and different. They backed this with attacks on key provisions of the Constitution, such as the creation of the vice-presidency, the creation of a national militia and, most importantly, the federal taxation authority granted by the document.
In fact, Antifederalists hammered home the taxation provision to the point that many people conjured up a mental picture of army troops marching into the towns and villages of the nation, demanding tax revenues at bayonet point.
It was amidst this atmosphere that the Pennsylvania legislature deliberated the calling of a state ratifying convention. Pennsylvania was considered a key early test, as the proposed Constitution directly contradicted many of the governmental structures and policies contained within the state's own constitution. Nevertheless, on September 28 – just 11 days after the signing of the Constitution – a motion was made to call a ratifying convention. But when the time came to vote, several Antifederalists left the chamber and holed up in a member's home, chamber just short of a quorum.
That night, crowds roamed the streets of Philadelphia, debating the legislature's action. By morning, tempers were high, and a crowd stormed the delegate's home. Forcibly removed, two delegates were physically carried to Independence Hall and slammed into their seats. With a quorum established by their addition, the chamber promptly endorsed a ratifying convention. The final vote was 45-2; history does not record who cast the two dissenting votes, but one can easily guess their identities.
On November 30 the Pennsylvania ratifying convention gathered for a scheduled five weeks of deliberation in the State House. Only a week into these proceedings, word reached Philadelphia that Delaware had, on December 6, become the first state to ratify the Constitution. Just six days later, Pennsylvania followed suit by a vote of 46-23.
With the key state of Pennsylvania having approved the Constitution, other states also began to fall into the fold. New Jersey's ratifying convention unanimously approved the document on December 16, joined by Georgia on January 2, 1788. On January 9, the same day that Connecticut voted 128-42 to ratify, Massachusetts convened its own ratifying convention.
The Massachusetts delegation was dominated by Antifederalist forces. Like their colleagues in other states, this group also campaigned forcefully against the Constitution, citing the threat of taxation at gunpoint by the federal government, the document's failure to ban slavery and the lack of religious qualifications for public office.
After nearly a month of verbal jousting, one of the leading Antifederalists, Samuel Adams, was prepared to vote for ratification -- provided that certain amendments were included in the convention's recommendation. In Adams' mind, these amendments would not be presented as a condition for ratification, but rather as recommendations to Congress. Included were provisions limiting the federal power over taxation and elections.
Whatever attraction these concessions held for the Antifederalists, Adams knew that ratification hinged on one person: Governor John Hancock. Despite his election as president of the gathering, Hancock had cited his health in begging off attendance at the Massachusetts meeting. A more plausible explanation involves Hancock's general opposition to the work of the Philadelphia convention.
Adams was aware, however, that the politically astute Hancock could be persuaded to make an appearance at the convention once a majority had been obtained. Based on this belief, Adams and several other delegates called on Hancock. Through a combination of flattery and cajoling, they secured Hancock's appearance at the convention, where he would present to the assembly the key amendments proposed by the Antifederalists.
Hancock arrived at the convention on January 30, 1788, and read a prepared speech outlining the proposed amendments. Despite the influence of his appearance, the debate raged for six days before a motion to ratify the Constitution was finally approved by a narrow margin, 187-168.
In the final days of the convention, the cause was nearly lost when Adams attempted to tack on even more amendments, such as liberty of the press, rights of conscience, and prohibitions against standing armies and unreasonable searches and seizures. This move sent the convention into an uproar, with many Antifederalists interpreting Adams' proposals as an expression of his own fear of the proposed national government. Adams wisely withdrew his motion after a short time.
Meanwhile, Maryland endorsed the Constitution on April 28 and South Carolina on May 23, leaving the document just one state short of ratification.
Once again attention was focused on another state of great influence. Virginia, which had such an abundance of prominent, respected political leaders, convened its ratifying convention in early June amid high expectations.
Madison, of course, was in attendance, along with such other notables as James Monroe, George Mason and John Marshall. But the convention was dominated by Patrick Henry, who, despite failing health, was present to argue the Antifederalist cause. The debates produced by this elite group of thinkers were among the finest ever heard as the convention reviewed, point by point, every clause of the Constitution.
The turning point in the proceedings came on June 4, when Governor Edmund Randolph, who had so conspicuously avoided signing the Constitution in Philadelphia, changed his mind. In a speech to the convention, he announced that his previous position, which had demanded the approval of amendments by the states prior to ratification, had now been altered. Now, Randolph told startled delegates, he was in favor of any practical scheme of amendment.
From that day on, the point of contention between the Federalists and Antifederalists would be "subsequent amendments" versus "previous amendments." In other words, the question was: Should the Constitution be ratified as it stood, with amendments to be enacted later; or should new state conventions be called to alter the document prior to ratification?
Finally, on June 24, a motion was made for ratification of the Constitution, along with a bill of rights and subsequent amendments. A long and heated debate raged until the next day, when an 89-79 vote resulted in passage of the motion.
Unbeknownst to the Virginia delegates, the New Hampshire convention had, only four days before, also approved ratification. With the New Hampshire vote, the Constitution had met the required approval of nine states.
The news of Virginia's ratification was a crushing blow to Antifederalist forces at the New York convention, which had been underway for two weeks at the time of Virginia's vote. On July 26, despite a valiant effort by the Antifederalists, New York also voted to ratify by a 30-27 margin. Approval included a bill of rights and a list of 32 subsequent amendments.
By August, 1788, less than one year after its signing in Philadelphia, 11 of the 13 states had ratified the Constitution. North Carolina followed suit on November 21, 1789, while the recalcitrant Rhode Island, which had refused to send delegates to the Philadelphia convention, held out until May 29, 1790.
The battle for ratification had not been an easy one. The votes in many states were by the thinnest of margins, reflecting the divided thought regarding the merits and liabilities of the Constitution.
Still, the debates which occurred stimulated needed attempts to assure the Constitution's continued timeliness via the amendment process. As we shall see later in this series, calls for guarantees of the rights belonging to all citizens, and other revisions, would soon bear fruit.
From website of The Missouri Bar
Much more was also at stake. Indeed, it would be at the state ratifying conventions where the Constitution would have to stand on its own. With these conventions lay no less than the future of the nation.
The reception given the Constitution upon the adjournment of the constitutional convention was nothing less than overtly hostile. It became obvious to even the most casual onlookers that this document was no mere revision of the Articles of Confederation, but an entirely different document setting up a bold new form of government. The reaction was overwhelmingly negative, leading many to speculate that the Philadelphia convention had been closed in order to prevent public outcry against this dangerous course of action.
The stage was set just eight days after the adjournment of the convention when Congress, its ranks bolstered by the arrival of delegates returning from Philadelphia, passed a recommendation that the states call ratification conventions at their earliest opportunity.
Those opposed to the strong central government outlined in the Constitution appeared to be dominant both in numbers and influence. Soon known as "Antifederalists," they included such prominent names as Richard Henry Lee, Patrick Henry, Benjamin Harrison and James Monroe of Virginia, Luther Martin of Maryland and Samuel Adams of Massachusetts.
The firepower of these anti-Constitution forces even awed Madison, who had devoted so much time and effort to the Philadelphia convention. "I am truly sorry," he wrote to a New York delegate, "to find so many respectable names on your list of adversaries to the Federal Constitution."
Indeed, both sides displayed considerable strength. But the Antifederalists had a natural advantage, playing upon the experimental nature of the Constitution and the people's natural fear of anything new and different. They backed this with attacks on key provisions of the Constitution, such as the creation of the vice-presidency, the creation of a national militia and, most importantly, the federal taxation authority granted by the document.
In fact, Antifederalists hammered home the taxation provision to the point that many people conjured up a mental picture of army troops marching into the towns and villages of the nation, demanding tax revenues at bayonet point.
It was amidst this atmosphere that the Pennsylvania legislature deliberated the calling of a state ratifying convention. Pennsylvania was considered a key early test, as the proposed Constitution directly contradicted many of the governmental structures and policies contained within the state's own constitution. Nevertheless, on September 28 – just 11 days after the signing of the Constitution – a motion was made to call a ratifying convention. But when the time came to vote, several Antifederalists left the chamber and holed up in a member's home, chamber just short of a quorum.
That night, crowds roamed the streets of Philadelphia, debating the legislature's action. By morning, tempers were high, and a crowd stormed the delegate's home. Forcibly removed, two delegates were physically carried to Independence Hall and slammed into their seats. With a quorum established by their addition, the chamber promptly endorsed a ratifying convention. The final vote was 45-2; history does not record who cast the two dissenting votes, but one can easily guess their identities.
On November 30 the Pennsylvania ratifying convention gathered for a scheduled five weeks of deliberation in the State House. Only a week into these proceedings, word reached Philadelphia that Delaware had, on December 6, become the first state to ratify the Constitution. Just six days later, Pennsylvania followed suit by a vote of 46-23.
With the key state of Pennsylvania having approved the Constitution, other states also began to fall into the fold. New Jersey's ratifying convention unanimously approved the document on December 16, joined by Georgia on January 2, 1788. On January 9, the same day that Connecticut voted 128-42 to ratify, Massachusetts convened its own ratifying convention.
The Massachusetts delegation was dominated by Antifederalist forces. Like their colleagues in other states, this group also campaigned forcefully against the Constitution, citing the threat of taxation at gunpoint by the federal government, the document's failure to ban slavery and the lack of religious qualifications for public office.
After nearly a month of verbal jousting, one of the leading Antifederalists, Samuel Adams, was prepared to vote for ratification -- provided that certain amendments were included in the convention's recommendation. In Adams' mind, these amendments would not be presented as a condition for ratification, but rather as recommendations to Congress. Included were provisions limiting the federal power over taxation and elections.
Whatever attraction these concessions held for the Antifederalists, Adams knew that ratification hinged on one person: Governor John Hancock. Despite his election as president of the gathering, Hancock had cited his health in begging off attendance at the Massachusetts meeting. A more plausible explanation involves Hancock's general opposition to the work of the Philadelphia convention.
Adams was aware, however, that the politically astute Hancock could be persuaded to make an appearance at the convention once a majority had been obtained. Based on this belief, Adams and several other delegates called on Hancock. Through a combination of flattery and cajoling, they secured Hancock's appearance at the convention, where he would present to the assembly the key amendments proposed by the Antifederalists.
Hancock arrived at the convention on January 30, 1788, and read a prepared speech outlining the proposed amendments. Despite the influence of his appearance, the debate raged for six days before a motion to ratify the Constitution was finally approved by a narrow margin, 187-168.
In the final days of the convention, the cause was nearly lost when Adams attempted to tack on even more amendments, such as liberty of the press, rights of conscience, and prohibitions against standing armies and unreasonable searches and seizures. This move sent the convention into an uproar, with many Antifederalists interpreting Adams' proposals as an expression of his own fear of the proposed national government. Adams wisely withdrew his motion after a short time.
Meanwhile, Maryland endorsed the Constitution on April 28 and South Carolina on May 23, leaving the document just one state short of ratification.
Once again attention was focused on another state of great influence. Virginia, which had such an abundance of prominent, respected political leaders, convened its ratifying convention in early June amid high expectations.
Madison, of course, was in attendance, along with such other notables as James Monroe, George Mason and John Marshall. But the convention was dominated by Patrick Henry, who, despite failing health, was present to argue the Antifederalist cause. The debates produced by this elite group of thinkers were among the finest ever heard as the convention reviewed, point by point, every clause of the Constitution.
The turning point in the proceedings came on June 4, when Governor Edmund Randolph, who had so conspicuously avoided signing the Constitution in Philadelphia, changed his mind. In a speech to the convention, he announced that his previous position, which had demanded the approval of amendments by the states prior to ratification, had now been altered. Now, Randolph told startled delegates, he was in favor of any practical scheme of amendment.
From that day on, the point of contention between the Federalists and Antifederalists would be "subsequent amendments" versus "previous amendments." In other words, the question was: Should the Constitution be ratified as it stood, with amendments to be enacted later; or should new state conventions be called to alter the document prior to ratification?
Finally, on June 24, a motion was made for ratification of the Constitution, along with a bill of rights and subsequent amendments. A long and heated debate raged until the next day, when an 89-79 vote resulted in passage of the motion.
Unbeknownst to the Virginia delegates, the New Hampshire convention had, only four days before, also approved ratification. With the New Hampshire vote, the Constitution had met the required approval of nine states.
The news of Virginia's ratification was a crushing blow to Antifederalist forces at the New York convention, which had been underway for two weeks at the time of Virginia's vote. On July 26, despite a valiant effort by the Antifederalists, New York also voted to ratify by a 30-27 margin. Approval included a bill of rights and a list of 32 subsequent amendments.
By August, 1788, less than one year after its signing in Philadelphia, 11 of the 13 states had ratified the Constitution. North Carolina followed suit on November 21, 1789, while the recalcitrant Rhode Island, which had refused to send delegates to the Philadelphia convention, held out until May 29, 1790.
The battle for ratification had not been an easy one. The votes in many states were by the thinnest of margins, reflecting the divided thought regarding the merits and liabilities of the Constitution.
Still, the debates which occurred stimulated needed attempts to assure the Constitution's continued timeliness via the amendment process. As we shall see later in this series, calls for guarantees of the rights belonging to all citizens, and other revisions, would soon bear fruit.
From website of The Missouri Bar