Transcript THE RATIFICATION CAMPAIGN Topic #7 Ratification = Consent • Remember (as the framers themselves certainly remembered during their deliberations) that the framers of.

THE RATIFICATION
CAMPAIGN
Topic #7
Ratification = Consent
• Remember (as the framers themselves certainly remembered during their deliberations) that the framers of the
Constitution were only making a proposal --- a proposal
that would later be accepted or rejected in a ratification
process.
– The framers, especially the most enthusiastic advocates a strong
central government, certainly had considerations of “political
feasibility” in mind.
– For example, they realized that, if the convention proposed a
Constitution with all the features of the VA Plan, such a
constitution would likely be rejected in the ratification process, so
central government enthusiasts ultimately preferred to put forward
a more moderate proposal.
• In terms of social contract theory, ratification is the
decisive stage at which popular consent is given (or
denied) to a proposed constitution/social contract.
The Ratification Campaign
• The ratification process set in motion the first national
political campaign in U.S. politics.
– It resembled a contemporary President nomination
campaign (that takes place over an extended period
as primary elections occur in different states at
different times) more than a contemporary President
election campaign.
• The proponents of the Constitution realized that they
faced a difficult task and that they need a coordinated
strategy that exploited every possible political advantage
available.
Federalists vs. Antifederalists
• Proponents of the Constitution called themselves
Federalists,
– stealing a political label that (given the political terminology of the
day) would have better fit those who wanted to keep the existing
A. of C.
– Calling themselves Nationalists would have been
more fitting, but less politically expedient.
• By default, the opponents of the Constitution became
know as Antifederalists.
The Antifederalists
• These were the main Antifederalist “talking points.”
– The convention violated its instructions, which called only for proposed
amendments to the A. of C.
– The proposed Constitution would create too strong a central government
– the kind we threw off at great cost a few years ago.
– The new National Executive looks too much like King George.
• “It squints towards monarchy.” (Patrick Henry)
– Popular government works best at the local and state level; good
democrats want to keep the central government weak, because central
government is inevitably oligarchic.
– “We the people of the United States…”!!! How dare they say that? We
are only “the people of Maryland,” “the people of Virginia,” etc.
[Antifederalist were “localists,” not “nationalists.”]
– They have proposed a “Godless Constitution.”
– They created this strong central government but failed to include a Bill of
Rights.
• This last point turned out to be by far the most politically effective
argument in the Antifederalist arsenal (which Hamilton tried to rebut
in Federalist #84).
Article VII of the Constitution
• It had been expected that the proposals of the federal
convention would take the form of amendments to the
Articles of Confederation.
No alteration may be made in the Articles of Confederation unless such
alteration be agreed to [unanimously] in a Congress of the United
States, and be afterwards confirmed by the legislatures of every State.
• But instead the framers inserted Article VII into their
proposed constitution:
• The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for
the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying
the Same.
• Two key differences:
• Ratification is by conventions (of elected delegates) in each state,
rather than by the legislatures of the states (as under the A. of C.)
• Ratification by any nine states is sufficient for the new Constitution
to go into effect, rather than ratification by all thirteen states (as
under the A. of C.
Article VII (cont.)
• This was a strikingly bold (even “revolutionary”) move:
– The Federalists were claiming that their Constitution should be
ratified according to a provision in their as yet unratified
constitution, not under the provisions of the existing law of the land
(the Articles of Confederation).
• The particular provisions of Article VII were advantageous
to the Federalist cause.
– Ratification by conventions vs. state legislatures.
• State legislatures up to now had exercised exclusive authority over the
people of their states.
• Under the proposed constitution, state legislatures would share this
authority with the new central government.
• So state legislatures had a significant institutional interest in opposing
the new constitution.
• Bypassing the state legislatures therefore advantaged the Federalists.
• Moreover they could plausibly claim that their procedure was more
popular/democratic that the A. of C. procedure.
Article VII (cont.)
• Ratification by nine states vs. thirteen.
– It’s obviously easier to get the support of 9 states than 13, but the
implications of this difference are more subtle and profound than they
may first appear.
– Of course, under Article VII, only the states that ratify [consent to] the
Constitution are bound by its terms.
– But strategic analysis of Article VII implies that, not only do fewer state
need to ratify the Constitution, but also that in the long run more states
are likely to ratify it than under unanimity rule.
• Under the A. of C. rules, any state can preserve the existing union
under the A.of C. (by rejecting the Constitution).
• Under the Article VII rules, any state can stay out of the new union
(by rejecting the Consitution), but it takes a coalition of five states to
keep the A. of C. in effect.
– Suppose, for example, that 11 states ratify the Constitution and 2 reject
it (which is pretty much what actually happened initially).
• Under the A. of C. rules, the Constitution is rejected and the A. of C.
remains in effect.
• Under the Article VII rules, the old confederal union disappears, a
new federal union is formed among the 11 ratifying states, and the
two non-ratifying states are left out in the cold. It is likely that they
will in due course change their minds, ratify the Constitution, and
join the union.
Other Strategic Considerations
• While formal ratification by any nine states would be
sufficient to establish the Constitution, it was recognized
by all that ratification by the biggest states (MA, NY, PA,
and VA) was essential, because without them a new
federal union would not be viable.
– NY was considered to be the most important “battleground state”
in the ratification campaign because
• it was closely divided between Federalists and Antifederalists, and
• a contiguous union could not be formed if NY stayed out.
• The Federalists were already organized, so their basic
strategy was to push for ratification by as many states as
quickly as possible,
– before the Antifederalists could get better organized, and
– to get a “bandwagon” rolling.
Other Strategic Considerations (cont.)
• The proposed Constitution was in effect being considered
on a take-it-or-leave-it basis,
– i.e., under a “closed rule” (with no amendments in order)
– so the Federalists were exercising “agenda power.”
• The fact that the only alternative to the Constitution was
the A. of C. worked to the Federalists’ advantage, because
the A. of C. were widely viewed as a failure.
• The election of delegates to the state ratifying conventions
became in effect popular referendums on the Constitution.
– Most candidates ran on either a Federalist or Antifederalist
“platform,”
– though uncommitted delegates were elected in some states (most
notably in Massachusetts).
The Federalist Papers
• Hamilton, Madison, and Jay
teamed up to write what are
now called the Federalist
Papers.
– These “op-ed” essays appeared
in New York City newspapers.
– They were intended to influence
voters to elect pro-Federalist
delegates to the NY ratifying
convention and to influence
uncommitted delegates when the
convention met.
– The essays were published
anonymously and signed Publius.
– The were widely distributed.
– Antifederalist papers were also
written and widely circulated.
Ratification map
and timeline
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Delaware
Pennsylvania
New Jersey
Connecticut
Georgia
Massachusetts [Bill of
Rights]
7. Maryland
8. South Carolina
9. New Hampshire <<<
10. Virginia
11. New York
===============
12. North Carolina
13. Rhode Island