Constitutional Ratification Debate

Background

In September 1787, after the Constitutional Convention, delegates returned to their states to advocate for ratification.
Article VII required two-thirds (nine of thirteen states) to ratify the Constitution for it to be enacted.
Skepticism met the document with questions about the Convention exceeding its mandate and its secretive nature.

Federalists: Advocated for ratification; included key figures like James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and John Jay.
- Authored The Federalist Papers (1787-1788) to argue for ratification.
- Federalist Papers are seen as authoritative on the Constitution.
Anti-Federalists: Opposed ratification; concerned about national power over states.
- Criticized the power to tax and the supremacy over state laws.
- Worried about the "necessary and proper clause" (Article I, Section 8), fearing it allowed Congress too much power.

Alexander Hamilton (Federalist No. 33):
- Defended "necessary and proper clause" as necessary for Congress to execute its powers.
- Argued people would ultimately check Congress's power if it became tyrannical.
James Madison (Federalist No. 44):
- Argued against fears of "necessary and proper clause."
- Highlighted constitutional safeguards and checks against Congressional overreach.

Patrick Henry:
- Refused to attend the Convention.
- Criticized "We the people" as indicating national over state supremacy.
- Feared a consolidated government that would overpower states.
- Advocated vigilance to protect public liberty.
George Mason:
- Refused to sign the Constitution due to lack of a Bill of Rights.
- Argued state rights were insufficient protection under new constitution.

The ratification debate was characterized by a national discussion focusing on persuasion and negotiation rather than force.
Central to the debate was whether the Constitution adequately protected individual and state rights.
Led to eventual inclusion of the Bill of Rights to address some Anti-Federalist concerns.