the essay urging ratification during

The Ratification Debate on the Constitution

Written by: bill of rights institute, by the end of this section, you will:.

• Explain the differing ideological positions on the structure and function of the federal government

Suggested Sequencing

Use this Narrative with the Were the Anti-Federalists Unduly Suspicious or Insightful Political Thinkers? Point-Counterpoint and the Federalist/Anti-Federalist Debate on Congress’s Powers of Taxation DBQ Lesson to have students analyze the debate between Federalists and Anti-Federalists.

On September 19, 1787, the Pennsylvania Packet newspaper published the draft of the Constitution for the consideration of the people and their representatives. On September 28, the Confederation Congress voted to send the Constitution to the state legislatures as written, so state conventions could be called to decide whether to ratify the new framework of government.

During the year-long debates over ratification, supporters of the Constitution called themselves Federalists; as a result, their opponents were known as Anti-Federalists. At the center of the often-contentious arguments that took place in homes, taverns, and on the printed page was the federal principle of balancing national and state power. Federalists defended the Constitution’s strengthened national government, with its greater congressional powers, more powerful executive, and independent judiciary. They argued that the new government supported the principles of separation of powers, checks and balances, and federalism. Anti-Federalists, on the other hand, worried that the proposed constitution represented a betrayal of the principles of the American Revolution. Had not Americans fought a war against the consolidation of power in a distant, central government that claimed unlimited powers of taxation? They feared a large republic in which the government, like the Empire from which they had declared independence, was unresponsive to the people. They also feared that a corrupt senate, judiciary, and executive would conspire to form an aristocracy. Finally, they argued against the absence of a bill of rights. States had them, in no small part because they remembered the English Bill of Rights of 1689, which had helped focus attention on the ways in which the British government abused its power.

Through September and October, various Anti-Federalists published essays under pseudonyms like Brutus, Cato, and the Federal Farmer in New York newspapers critiquing the Constitution. Although they did not coordinate their efforts, a coherent set of principles about government and opposition to the proposed Constitution emerged. Alexander Hamilton noted that the “artillery of [the Constitution’s] opponents makes some impression.”

In mid-October, for a series of essays he planned to defend the Constitution from critics, Hamilton enlisted the contributions of Madison, the “father of the Constitution,” as well as John Jay, the president of the Continental Congress and a New York diplomat. The first of these Federalist essays was published in a New York newspaper, under the pseudonym Publius, on October 27. It was addressed to the people of New York but was aimed at the delegates to the state’s Ratifying Convention. In it, Hamilton described the meaning of the choice the states would make:

It seems to have been reserved to the people of this country, by their conduct and example, to decide the important question, whether societies of men are really capable or not of establishing good government from reflection and choice, or whether they are forever destined to depend for their political constitutions on accident and force.

Alexander Hamilton, shown in an 1806 portrait by John Trumbull, was the driving force behind The Federalist Paper sand wrote fifty-one of the essays arguing for ratification.

By mid-January, 1788, five states (Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania) had ratified the Constitution. The Federalists were building momentum toward the nine states they needed to win, but they knew the main opposition would come from Anti-Federalists in large and powerful states, including Massachusetts, New York, and Virginia.

The Anti-Federalists were also mounting an effective opposition in essays and debates. Some 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. On February 6, Massachusetts became the sixth state to approve the Constitution by a narrow vote of 187 to 168.

In New Hampshire, the Federalists thought they did not have enough votes to ratify, so they strategically adjourned the convention until June so that they could muster more support. Two other states, Maryland and South Carolina, met that spring and overwhelmingly ratified the Constitution, bringing the total to eight. Still, to be considered legitimate the Constitution would need the support of Virginia and New York, because of their political and economic influence and geographical location, even if the approval of nine other states met the constitutional threshold for the new government to go into operation.

On March 22, Hamilton and Madison arranged for the first thirty-six Federalist essays to be published in book form and distributed copies to friends in hope of influencing the delegates to the New York and Virginia ratifying conventions. Because the outcome remained highly uncertain, a second volume including the rest of the eighty-five essays was published on May 28. George Washington praised The Federalist for throwing “new lights upon the science of government” and giving “the rights of man a full and fair discussion.” Thomas Jefferson said it was “the best commentary on the principles of government which ever was written.” The Anti-Federalist essays contributed important reflections on human nature and the character of a republican government in making arguments about why the writers thought the proposed Constitution dangerously expanded the powers of the central government.

When the Virginia Convention met on June 2, a titanic debate took place as two Federalist masters of political debate, Madison and John Marshall, clashed with George Mason and the fiery orator Patrick Henry. Among other Virginians, Washington stayed above the debate, although everyone knew he supported the Constitution, and Jefferson, then in Paris, at first opposed and then supported ratification with prior amendments, because he favored a bill of rights.

Railing against the Constitution, Henry warned that the states would lose their sovereignty in a Union of “we the people” instead of “we the states.” He cautioned that a powerful national government would violate natural rights and civil liberties, thus destroying “the rights of conscience, trial by jury, liberty of the press . . . all pretentions to human rights and privileges, are rendered insecure, if not lost, by this change.” Henry also thundered that the president would lead a standing army against the people.

Madison countered with a line-by-line exposition of the reasoning behind each clause of the Constitution. On June 25, the Virginia Convention voted 89 to 79 for ratification.

Meanwhile, the Anti-Federalists dominated the New York Convention three to one. Hamilton passionately defended the Constitution and urged his allies in Virginia and New Hampshire to send word of the outcomes in those two states by express rider to influence the New York debate. New Yorkers soon learned that the Constitution had officially become the fundamental law of the land for the states adopting it. The question was now whether New York would join the new federal union. On July 26, by a narrow vote of 30 to 27, New York answered in the affirmative, conditionally ratifying the Constitution with a call for another convention to propose a bill of rights. Only after Congress voted in 1789 to send amendments to the states for approval did North Carolina and Rhode Island vote to ratify the new Constitution.

The sovereign people participated in a great deliberative moment in which they ultimately decided to accept a new Constitution with a central government wielding greater powers to protect their rights, safety, and happiness. The formal and informal deliberations about the principles of government defined the republican nature of the new U.S. government. Meanwhile, the spirit of compromise that yielded not only ratification but also, at the urging of Anti-Federalists, the adoption of the Bill of Rights, reflected genuine patriotism by the people who served the public good and suggested that the Americans were capable of self-government.

Review Questions

1. Who of the following were key advocates for the Constitution?

• Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, and James Madison
• John Jay, George Mason, and James Madison
• Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and Edmund Randolph
• George Mason, Patrick Henry, and Edmund Randolph

2. Who of the following refused to sign the Constitution because, in their opinion, it gave too much power to the federal government?

• George Mason, Elbridge Gerry, and Edmund Randolph

3. What key feature, which many Anti-Federalists argued was essential, was missing from the original Constitution?

• A due process clause
• A decision on the issue of the slave trade
• A bill of rights
• Multiple branches of government

4. Which of the following was the primary source of disagreement between the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists when debating the merits of the Constitution?

• Inclusion of clauses that acknowledge slavery and included slaves in representation
• Size and scope of the federal government balanced with that of the states
• Ability to conduct foreign affairs at the federal level only
• Possibility of the legislative branch requiring taxes at the state level

5. The Anti-Federalists’ distrust of corrupt elite politicians is best exemplified by their adamant insistence on the

• electoral college, which would elect the president
• Supreme Court Justices, who would be elected not appointed
• Bill of Rights, which articulated the rights of each person
• executive position, which would be eligible for reelection

6. One advantage the Federalists had during the ratification debate was that

• many smaller state governments were open to the concept of a stronger federal government
• highly organized authors published essay after essay supporting and explaining the new form of government
• the large and influential states of New York and Virginia were eager to ratify the Constitution as soon as possible
• almost unanimous support for the Constitution existed in every state

7. Many Anti-Federalists argued that the Constitution’s strong national government was

• absolutely necessary to protect the sovereignty of the nation
• too similar to the monarchy from which colonists had fought to be free
• carefully crafted to prevent any abuses of private citizens
• akin to the Articles of Confederation, which required no change

8. How did the debate for ratification ultimately end?

• Not enough states voted to ratify and the Constitution did not become the government of the United States,
• The minimum number of states ratified the Constitution, so it became the law of the land, but only for the states that accepted it.
• Each state ultimately ratified the Constitution, despite close votes and thorough debates.
• Debates continue on the merits of the Constitution, and a few states still need to hold their ratifying convention.

Free Response Questions

• How did the ratification debate demonstrate republicanism in the United States’ founding?
• How was the deliberative process of making and ratifying the Constitution a key moment in the history of republics?

AP Practice Questions

The Federal Pillars.

1. The image shown best supports which argument of the ratification debate?

• The need for a bill of rights to curtail the powers of the central government and guarantee people’s individual liberties
• The potential destruction of deliberation and creation of rival factions
• The view that states need to stand individually without an overarching, omnipotent central government
• The need for states to support and ratify the Constitution to guarantee the existence of a republican union

“In the course of the preceding observations, I have had an eye, my fellow-citizens, to putting you upon your guard against all attempts, from whatever quarter, to influence your decision in a matter of the utmost moment to your welfare, by any impressions other than those which may result from the evidence of truth. You will, no doubt, at the same time, have collected from the general scope of them, that they proceed from a source not unfriendly to the new Constitution. Yes, my countrymen, I own to you that, after having given it an attentive consideration, I am clearly of opinion it is your interest to adopt it. I am convinced that this is the safest course for your liberty, your dignity, and your happiness. I affect not reserves which I do not feel. I will not amuse you with an appearance of deliberation when I have decided. I frankly acknowledge to you my convictions, and I will freely lay before you the reasons on which they are founded. The consciousness of good intentions disdains ambiguity. I shall not, however, multiply professions on this head. My motives must remain in the depository of my own breast. My arguments will be open to all, and may be judged of by all. They shall at least be offered in a spirit which will not disgrace the cause of truth.”

Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers: No. 1 , October 27, 1787

2. Which of the following best describes the purpose of The Federalist essays?

• To promote the advantages of states’ rights
• To convince delegates and people to support the Constitution to secure ratification
• To narrate the ongoing deliberations at the ratification conventions
• To outline characteristics of a new form of government to be included in the Constitution

3. Which of the following is an accurate statement about Anti-Federalist and Federalist beliefs in constitutional principles?

• Anti-Federalists argued for the value of limited central government, whereas Federalists maintained that natural rights to life, liberty, and property would be best protected under a strong central government.
• Anti-Federalists supported the idea of a strong executive elected by the consent of the governed, whereas Federalists argued for states’ rights and cooperation of the states as a confederacy.
• Anti-Federalists asserted that the rule of law would best serve the people of the United States, whereas Federalists promoted a limited government and cooperation of the states.
• Anti-Federalists advocated for republicanism and self-governance, whereas Federalists argued that a representative government could be legitimized only through cooperation with international allies.

“Amendment I. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. Amendment II. A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. Amendment III. No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.”

The United States Bill of Rights, 1789

4. Which of the following pieces of outside evidence provides context for this document?

• Many citizens were concerned that individual rights were not expressed in the Constitution and demanded the addition.
• The Founders wanted to follow in the footsteps of Great Britain by adding a bill of rights.
• Women felt strongly their needs were not being met by the Constitution and held a convention of their own, resulting in this document.
• After intense debate, state conventions decided this document would replace the Constitution.

5. Which of the following did not influence the addition of the Bill of Rights?

• Actions taken by the British government before and during the Revolution inspired some of the amendments.
• State constitutions had articulated many of these rights prior to the Constitution.
• Political factions demanded clarification of inalienable rights to support the Constitution’s ratification.
• The French alliance inspired the founders to adopt the French form of government.

6. Which of the following explains why the amendments provided were not included in the original Constitution?

• State delegations at the Convention argued that additional amendments were unnecessary because most states already had a Bills of Rights.
• The Founders published the Constitution in newspapers and forgot to include the page with these amendments.
• The Founders were influenced by the British tradition of unwritten government that relied on precedent.
• Delegates at the convention were unable to reach a quorum to vote on these items, because the summer was over and many had already headed home.

7. Which political faction primarily advocated the document excerpted previously?

• Federalists
• Anti-Federalists

Primary Sources

Hamilton, Alexander. The Federalist 1 . American History. University of Groningen. http://www.let.rug.nl/usa/documents/1786-1800/the-federalist-papers/the-federalist-1.php

U.S. Constitution . Yale Law School. http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/usconst.asp

Suggested Resources

Allen, W.B. and Gordon Lloyd, eds. The Essential Anti-Federalist . Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield, 2002.

Bailyn, Bernard, ed. The Debate on the Constitution: Federalist and Anti-Federalist Speeches, Articles, and Letters During the Struggle over Ratification . 2 vols. New York: Library of America, 1993.

Carey, George W. and James McClellan. The Federalist: The Gideon Edition . Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, 2001.

Cornell, Saul. The Other Founders: Anti-Federalism and the Dissenting Tradition in America, 1788-1828 . Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1999.

Ketcham, Ralph, ed. The Anti-Federalist Papers and the Constitutional Convention Debates . New York: New American Library, 1986.

Lloyd, Gordon. “The Federalist-Antifederalist Debate.” TeachingAmericanHistory.org. http://teachingamericanhistory.org/founding/

Lloyd, Gordon. “The Ratification of the United States Constitution.” TeachingAmericanHistory.org. http://teachingamericanhistory.org/founding/

Maier, Pauline. Ratification: The People Debate the Constitution, 1787-1788 . New York: Simon & Schuster, 2010.

Main, Jackson Turner. The Anti-Federalists: Critics of the Constitution, 1781-1788 . Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1961.

Meyerson, Michael I. Liberty’s Blueprint: How Madison and Hamilton Wrote the Federalist Papers, Defined the Constitution, and Made Democracy Safe for the World . New York: Basic, 2008.

Morris, Richard B. Witnesses at the Creation: Hamilton, Madison, Jay, and the Constitution. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1985.

Rakove, Jack. Original Meanings: Politics and Ideas in the Making of the Constitution . New York: Vintage, 1996.

Storing, Herbert. What the Anti-Federalists were For: The Political Thought of the Opponents of the Constitution</e

Related Content

Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness

In our resource history is presented through a series of narratives, primary sources, and point-counterpoint debates that invites students to participate in the ongoing conversation about the American experiment.

Plan Your Visit

• Things to Do
• Where to Eat
• Hours & Directions
• Frequently Asked Questions
• Accessibility
• Washington, D.C. Metro Area
• Guest Policies
• Historic Area
• Distillery & Gristmill
• Virtual Tour

George Washington

• French & Indian War
• Revolutionary War
• Constitution
• First President
• Martha Washington
• Native Americans

Preservation

• Collections
• Archaeology
• Architecture
• The Mount Vernon Ladies' Association
• Restoration Projects
• Preserving the View
• Preservation Timeline
• Primary Source Collections
• Secondary Sources
• Educational Events
• Interactive Tools
• Videos and Podcasts
• Hands on History at Home

Washington Library

• Catalogs and Digital Resources
• Research Fellowships
• The Papers of George Washington
• Library Events & Programs
• Leadership Institute
• Center for Digital History
• George Washington Prize
• About the Library
• Back to Main menu
• Colonial Music Institute
• Past Projects
• Digital Exhibits

Digital Encyclopedia

• About the Encyclopedia
• Contributors
• George Washington Presidential Library

Estate Hours

9 a.m. to 5 p.m.

u_turn_left Directions & Parking

Ratification of the Constitution

Washington also sent copies to Benjamin Harrison, Patrick Henry , and Edmund Randolph , the three most recent governors of Virginia who each had serious reservations about the Constitution. Once back home at Mount Vernon , Washington spent his mornings writing letters to political leaders throughout the nation, urging them to support the Constitution. At the same time, Washington knew that if the Constitution was adopted, he would most likely become the first President of the United States and be called away from his beloved estate.

In his correspondence, Washington clearly laid out the reasons why he believed the Constitution should be ratified. The unity of the nation had been sorely tested under the Articles of Confederation. Washington, in fact, feared the current government was so powerless that it would soon dissolve either from deteriorating support of the people or from the fact that states would no longer bother to send representatives to the Confederation Congress. While the Constitution was not perfect, it created a stronger central government that included a Congress with the power to tax, a President who would act as the nation’s chief executive, and a national court system. Washington urged people who had doubts about the Constitution to support it, reminding them that once it was approved it could be amended.

By defending the Constitution, Washington parted company with older revolutionaries such as George Mason , and allied himself with younger political leaders like James Madison . Washington opposed many of his fellow planters who believed the Constitution would destroy the republic. As Washington explained in a letter to the Marquis de Lafayette, he found it "a little strange that the men of large property in the south should be more afraid that the constitution should produce an aristocracy or a monarchy than the genuine democratical people of the east." 1 Deeply in debt himself, Washington was also troubled that so many Virginians believed they had a better chance for prosperity in a weak nation rather than a strong one.

At the start of the ratification convention in Richmond in May of 1788, eight states had already approved the Constitution. While Washington did not attend the convention, he stayed in contact with Madison who defended the document in a series of brilliant debates. When the vote was finally taken on June 25, the Constitution was approved by a margin of 89 to 79.

Washington headed for a celebration in Alexandria , believing that Virginia had been the ninth state to approve the document. Even when news arrived that New Hampshire had approved the Constitution immediately before Virginia, the celebrations went on. Many people agreed with James Monroe, that Washington’s influence had "carried this government." 2 But a more humble Washington believed that "Providence" had once again smiled on the American people. 3

Mary Stockwell, Ph.D.

Notes: 1. "George Washington to Marquis de Lafayette, 19 June 1788," quoted in Joseph Ellis, His Excellency: George Washington (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2004), 181.

2. "James Monroe to Thomas Jefferson, 12 July 1788," quoted in Ron Chernow, George Washington: A Life (New York: Penguin Press, 2010), 546.

3. "George Washington to Charles Cotesworth Pinckney, 28 June 1788," quoted in Douglas Southall Freeman, George Washington: A Biography, Volume Six, Patriot and President (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1954), 140.

Bibliography: Chernow, Ron. Washington: A Life. New York: Penguin Press, 2010.

Ellis, Joseph. His Excellency: George Washington. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2004.

Freeman, Douglas Southall. George Washington: A Biography, Volume Six, Patriot and President. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1954.

Maier, Pauline. Ratification: The People Debate the Constitution, 1787-1788. New York: Simon & Schuster, 2010.

George Mason

Renowned for his authorship of the Virginia Declaration of Rights,and the Virginia Bill of Rights and Constitution, George Mason became an advocate for the rights of colonists by the 1760s and flourished through the 1770s. Later in life, Mason remained politically independent, refusing to sign the 1787 Constitution.

Justice Kennedy on George Washington

The Honorable Anthony Kennedy, Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court, discusses the vital role that George Washington played in the establishment of the Constitution and the office of the President of the United States.

Shays' Rebellion

Shays' Rebellion, arising in the Massachusetts countryside during 1786 and 1787, was inspired by the fiscal crisis following the Revolution. The Rebellion strengthened calls to reform the Articles of Confederation, leading eventually to the Constitutional Convention. 

Visit the new and improved Hamilton Education Program website

• AP US History Study Guide
• History U: Courses for High School Students
• History School: Summer Enrichment
• Lesson Plans
• Classroom Resources
• Spotlights on Primary Sources
• Professional Development (Academic Year)
• Professional Development (Summer)
• Book Breaks
• Inside the Vault
• Self-Paced Courses
• Browse All Resources
• Search by Issue
• Search by Essay
• Become a Member (Free)
• Monthly Offer (Free for Members)
• Program Information
• Scholarships and Financial Aid
• Applying and Enrolling
• Eligibility (In-Person)
• EduHam Online
• Hamilton Cast Read Alongs
• Official Website
• Press Coverage
• Veterans Legacy Program
• The Declaration at 250
• Black Lives in the Founding Era
• Celebrating American Historical Holidays
• Browse All Programs
• Donate Items to the Collection
• Search Our Catalog
• Research Guides
• Rights and Reproductions
• See Our Documents on Display
• Bring an Exhibition to Your Organization
• Interactive Exhibitions Online
• About the Transcription Program
• Civil War Letters
• Founding Era Newspapers
• College Fellowships in American History
• Scholarly Fellowship Program
• Richard Gilder History Prize
• David McCullough Essay Prize
• Affiliate School Scholarships
• Nominate a Teacher
• State Winners
• National Winners
• Gilder Lehrman Lincoln Prize
• Gilder Lehrman Military History Prize
• George Washington Prize
• Frederick Douglass Book Prize
• Our Mission and History
• Annual Report
• Contact Information
• Student Advisory Council
• Teacher Advisory Council
• Board of Trustees
• Remembering Richard Gilder
• President's Council
• Scholarly Advisory Board
• Internships
• Our Partners
• Press Releases

History Resources

Ratification Debates: A New York Case Study

By catherine turso, historical background.

The Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia in the summer of 1787 was full of conflict and compromise. Yet as the convention drew to a close, some of the biggest debates were just beginning. According to the Constitution, nine of the thirteen states needed to ratify the document before it could go into effect (although most acknowledged that without the support of all the states, the government would struggle with legitimacy). It would take almost three years for all thirteen states to ratify the Constitution. Some states ratified quickly, with little debate. But some of the most powerful states including Massachusetts, Virginia, and New York, became battlegrounds between those who supported ratification of the Constitution, the Federalists, and those who opposed it, the Anti-Federalists. New York was the last of those states to ratify the Constitution with a close vote of 30 in favor and 27 against. New York delegates joined in the call for a Bill of Rights to be added to the Constitution as a condition for ratification.

This lesson is designed to impress upon students that the Constitution, a document so revered today, was hotly debated at its inception. The lesson also asks students to consider what may have shaped the differing viewpoints on the Constitution. This particular case study is set in New York, but the activity could be set in any of the states that had a strong debate over ratification.

• Students will analyze primary documents in order to identify differing views on the ratification of the Constitution.
• Students will apply their understanding of these viewpoints as they develop profiles for fictional characters.
• Students will debate ratification from various positions in a town hall forum.
• Students will be able to explain why New Yorkers (and Americans in general) disagreed on ratification of the Constitution.
• Ratification maps: interactive  
• State-by-state chart of ratification
• Packet of primary documents  (PDF), or create your own
• Berkin, Carol  A Brilliant Solution (optional)

Activity 1: Motivation

• General Observations
• Observations about your state’s Ratification Vote
• Questions raised by the information
• Debrief: As a class, chart students’ observations and questions. Give students a couple of minutes to brainstorm theories on why New York was one of the last states to ratify the Constitution and why the vote was so close. Add theories to the chart.

Activity 2: Understanding the Viewpoints

Mini-Lecture or reading on the ratification process.

Review of Constitutionial Convention

Rules for Ratification

Groups that form – Federalists & Anti-Federalists

Methods of arguing positions – Federalist Papers and other anonymous writings published in newspapers, debates at ratification conferences, etc.

Carol Berkin’s A Brilliant Solution has a great overview of the ratification process with details on each states ratification battle.

Give students (in pairs or groups) a packet of primary documents on ratification of the Constitution representing a variety of viewpoints. For each document have students:

Identify the source – Who is the author? What do you know about the author?

Read each document excerpt carefully, looking up unfamiliar vocabulary.

Identify the viewpoint – What is the author’s position on the Constitution (Federalist/ Anti-Federalist)? What are the author’s main arguments?

Brainstorm: What other Americans would be most likely to agree with this author’s position?

Note: Choose a range of document excerpts based on time available and reading level of students. Teachers may want to give different groups different sets of documents. For more of a challenge, the link below each document will take the students to the full text.

Debrief: As a class, chart the documents as Federalist or Anti-Federalist. Then have students discuss the arguments used in the documents on each side with the rest of the class.

Activity 3: Town Hall Meeting on Ratification

Scenario: New York State’s ratifying convention is set to take place next month (summer of 1788). A local delegate is holding a town hall meeting to hear the views of his constituency before he votes.

Each group of students will take on an identity and prepare the character’s position on the ratification of the Constitution. At the town hall meeting, each group will work together and argue his/her position in an effort to persuade the delegate.

Assign each group one of the following identities. For homework, research the lives of real Americans with the same identity during the 1780s, focusing on their role in society, their political and economic power, what their business priorities may be and what struggles they may be facing.

Owner of a large shipping company

Large land owner

Farmer with a small farm

Sailor working on ships out of New York Harbor

Enslaved African day laborer in New York City

In groups, have students formulate their character’s position on the Constitution.

Share research and write up a brief profile for your character.

Review your notes on arguments for and against the ratification of the Constitution.

As a group, decide what position you think your character would take. List at least two reasons for your decision.

Extension Option: In order for students to get a sense of other perspectives that will be presented during the town hall meeting, have all the students, or a representative from each group, mingle in character for 5 to 10 minutes discussing their views on the Constitution. Then have students return to groups and share their perspectives.

Prepare for the Town Hall Meeting: Each group’s goal is to convince the delegate (the teacher or an outside guest) to vote for or against ratification.

As a group, write down at least three arguments for or against ratification of the Constitution. Be sure to base your responses both on the primary documents AND the logical perspective of your character.

Brainstorm opposing arguments and discuss how your group will respond.

Select group members to deliver the opening and closing statements and to present the group’s arguments.

Town Hall Meeting

Arrange the room so groups can see one another. Give each group a placard with their character’s identity.

Meeting protocol:

Opening Statements: Each group has 2 minutes to introduce themselves and their position on ratification of the Constitution.

Presentation of Arguments: The Delegate opens the floor for arguments. Groups should take turns raising their arguments for ratification. After 5 minutes, the delegate can open the floor for those opposed to ratification.

Open Debate: Give students the last 5 to 10 minutes to debate one another over the issue of ratification. The delegate may call up to two people arguing the same position before he/she needs to call on someone arguing the opposing position.

Closing statements: Each group has 1 minute to reiterate their position and try to sway the delegate one last time.

Give students 5 minutes to respond individually in writing to the following: If you were the delegate, after hearing the arguments of your constituents, which way would you vote at the ratification convention? Note: Students no longer need to argue the position they argued during the Town Hall Meeting.

Have the class vote. If time, ask several students to explain their votes.

Debrief Discussion: Why do you think ratification of the Constitution was so controversial in New York? Revisit and evaluate theories from the first activity.

Extension Activity: Essay

To better assess students’ understanding of the different arguments about ratification of the Constitution, have students write a 5-paragraph essay on one of the following topics:

• Recommend a position on ratification (again, not necessarily based on the position they argued in class).
• Why do you think ratification of the Constitution was so controversial in New York?

Stay up to date, and subscribe to our quarterly newsletter.

Learn how the Institute impacts history education through our work guiding teachers, energizing students, and supporting research.

• Search Menu

Sign in through your institution

• Author Guidelines
• Open Access Options
• Why Publish with JAH?
• About Journal of American History
• About the Organization of American Historians
• Editorial Board
• Advertising and Corporate Services
• Self-Archiving Policy
• Dispatch Dates
• Journals on Oxford Academic
• Books on Oxford Academic
• < Previous

Ratification: The People Debate the Constitution, 1787–1788

• Article contents
• Figures & tables
• Supplementary Data

Douglas Bradburn, Ratification: The People Debate the Constitution, 1787–1788, Journal of American History , Volume 98, Issue 4, March 2012, Pages 1150–1151, https://doi.org/10.1093/jahist/jar627

• Permissions Icon Permissions

In this exhaustive and award-winning narrative, Pauline Maier describes the drama of the ratification of the U.S. Constitution. Beginning with a quick overview of the problems of the 1780s and the Constitutional Convention from the perspective of George Washington, Maier sets out the process of the ratification of the Constitution, an extraordinary moment in U.S. and world history when a union of states strengthened their union through the deliberation (and occasional chicanery) of the political community. Maier strives at all times to show the contingency and potential for failure in this extraordinary story—a story that feels inevitable to Americans, even most American historians. To do so she holds to a strict chronological approach, describing state by state the process, personalities, and debates that gradually led to the approval of the new form of government.

The chronological approach is central to Maier’s point, and it helps highlight the strategy that ultimately led to ratification, as supporters attempted to create a winning momentum and present a near fait accompli for the most intractable large states. By the time New York—a state with a talented and mobilized opposition—debated the Constitution in June 1788, the document had already been ratified. The key ratification probably was by Massachusetts, which presented a large and vocal opposition that was ultimately defanged by an article-by-article debate. Because the state approved ratification and suggested but did not require amendments, the outcome in Massachusetts provided a model for getting the Constitution approved in the face of divided opinion, a model that would be followed in the other states. One of the more important aspects of Maier’s study is her rejection of the term “antifederalist” for those who opposed ratification. As she shows, the term should only be employed to describe a small segment of opponents in the Hudson River valley who embraced the term. It was used by the supporters of ratification to denigrate those who disagreed with them; it implied a sense of disloyalty. The term also fails to describe the people against immediate approval of the Constitution; they were not antifederal in any meaningful sense of the word.

Organization of American Historians members

Personal account.

• Sign in with email/username & password
• Get email alerts
• Save searches
• Purchase content
• Activate your purchase/trial code
• Add your ORCID iD

Institutional access

Sign in with a library card.

• Sign in with username/password
• Recommend to your librarian
• Institutional account management
• Get help with access

Access to content on Oxford Academic is often provided through institutional subscriptions and purchases. If you are a member of an institution with an active account, you may be able to access content in one of the following ways:

IP based access

Typically, access is provided across an institutional network to a range of IP addresses. This authentication occurs automatically, and it is not possible to sign out of an IP authenticated account.

Choose this option to get remote access when outside your institution. Shibboleth/Open Athens technology is used to provide single sign-on between your institution’s website and Oxford Academic.

• Click Sign in through your institution.
• Select your institution from the list provided, which will take you to your institution's website to sign in.
• When on the institution site, please use the credentials provided by your institution. Do not use an Oxford Academic personal account.
• Following successful sign in, you will be returned to Oxford Academic.

If your institution is not listed or you cannot sign in to your institution’s website, please contact your librarian or administrator.

Enter your library card number to sign in. If you cannot sign in, please contact your librarian.

Society Members

Society member access to a journal is achieved in one of the following ways:

Sign in through society site

Many societies offer single sign-on between the society website and Oxford Academic. If you see ‘Sign in through society site’ in the sign in pane within a journal:

• Click Sign in through society site.
• When on the society site, please use the credentials provided by that society. Do not use an Oxford Academic personal account.

If you do not have a society account or have forgotten your username or password, please contact your society.

Sign in using a personal account

Some societies use Oxford Academic personal accounts to provide access to their members. See below.

A personal account can be used to get email alerts, save searches, purchase content, and activate subscriptions.

Some societies use Oxford Academic personal accounts to provide access to their members.

Viewing your signed in accounts

Click the account icon in the top right to:

• View your signed in personal account and access account management features.
• View the institutional accounts that are providing access.

Signed in but can't access content

Oxford Academic is home to a wide variety of products. The institutional subscription may not cover the content that you are trying to access. If you believe you should have access to that content, please contact your librarian.

For librarians and administrators, your personal account also provides access to institutional account management. Here you will find options to view and activate subscriptions, manage institutional settings and access options, access usage statistics, and more.

Short-term Access

To purchase short-term access, please sign in to your personal account above.

Don't already have a personal account? Register

Email alerts

Citing articles via.

• Process - a blog for american history
• Recommend to your Library

Affiliations

• Online ISSN 1945-2314
• Print ISSN 0021-8723
• Copyright © 2024 Organization of American Historians
• About Oxford Academic
• Publish journals with us
• University press partners
• What we publish
• New features  
• Open access
• Rights and permissions
• Accessibility
• Advertising
• Media enquiries
• Oxford University Press
• Oxford Languages
• University of Oxford

Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide

• Copyright © 2024 Oxford University Press
• Cookie settings
• Cookie policy
• Privacy policy
• Legal notice

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Sign In or Create an Account

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

For full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.

The American Founding

New York Ratifying Convention

July 17, 1788

Introduction

New York followed  Virginia’s example  of distinguishing between amendments that went to the heart of the proposed Constitution on the one hand, and on the other, a bill of rights that would be a “civic education” reminder to the people concerning what was at stake, as well as a constraint on the abuse of power by elected or appointed officials.

The delegates made their way through the  Constitution  from start to finish. Next came the big question. Should the Constitution be ratified “conditionally” on the adoption of proposals for amendments and a bill of rights or with “full confidence” that the First Congress would actively pursue the adoption of amendments and a bill of rights? John Lansing and Abraham Yates—New York delegates who attended and left the Philadelphia Convention halfway through—and Governor George Clinton supported conditional ratification, going so far as to suggest that if these conditions were not met in the First Congress, then New York should consider seceding from the union. They were particularly interested in the adoption of the thirty-one amendment proposals that directly confronted the work of the Framers. Alexander Hamilton, and the prominent Antifederalist politician and writer Melancton Smith, supported the “full confidence” approach with particular emphasis on the adoption of a bill of rights. Going into the Convention, John Lansing and Robert Yates had the votes to reject the Constitution: 46–19. The Constitution was adopted however, without conditions, on July 25 by a vote of 30–27. Smith, who may have had a hand in the Federal Farmer essays, as well as authoring the Brutus essays, persuaded more than ten Antifederalists to vote in favor of adopting the Constitution with the expectation that the First Congress would revisit the issue of Amendments and a Bill of Rights. Besides, argued Smith, the Constitution had already been adopted by ten states. Wasn’t it better to accept adoption and seek relief in the First Congress than make a petulant statement? Eight delegates, including Governor Clinton, the presumed author of the Antifederalist Cato essays, abstained.

SOURCE: THE DEBATES IN THE SEVERAL STATE CONVENTIONS ON THE ADOPTION OF THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION, AS RECOMMENDED BY THE GENERAL CONVENTION AT PHILADELPHIA IN 1787, 2D ED., WITH CONSIDERABLE ADDITIONS. COLLECTED AND REV. FROM CONTEMPORARY PUBLICATIONS, BY JONATHAN ELLIOT. PUBLISHED UNDER THE SANCTION OF CONGRESS. (1836), 5 VOLS. HTTPS://GOO.GL/YRG4Q7

Bill of Rights

We the delegates of the people of the State of New York, duly elected and met in convention, having maturely considered the Constitution for the United States of America, agreed to on the seventeenth day of September, in the year one thousand seven hundred and eighty-seven, by the Convention then assembled at Philadelphia in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (a copy whereof precedes these presents) and having also seriously and deliberately considered the present situation of the United States, do declare and make known.

That all power is originally vested in and consequently derived from the people, and that government is instituted by them for their common Interest protection and security.

That the enjoyment of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are essential rights which every government ought to respect and preserve.

That the powers of government may be reassumed by the people, when so ever it shall become necessary to their happiness; that every power, jurisdiction and right, which is not by the said Constitution clearly delegated to the Congress of the United States, or the departments of the government thereof, remains to the people of the several states, or to their respective state governments to whom they may have granted the same. And that those clauses in the said Constitution, which declare, that Congress shall not have or exercise certain powers, do not imply that Congress is entitled to any powers not given by the said Constitution; but such clauses are to be construed either as exceptions to certain specified powers, or as inserted merely for greater caution.

That the people have an equal, natural and unalienable right, freely and peaceably to exercise their religion according to the dictates of conscience, and that no religious sect or society ought to be favored or established by law in preference of others.

That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well regulated militia, including the body of the people capable of bearing arms is the proper, natural and safe defense of a free state.

That the militia should not be subject to martial law except in time of war, rebellion or insurrection.

That standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, and ought not to be kept up, except in cases of necessity; and that at all times, the military should be under strict subordination to the civil power.

That in time of peace no soldier ought to be quartered in any house without the consent of the owner, and in time of war only by the civil magistrate in such manner as the laws may direct.

That no person ought to be taken imprisoned or disseized [1]   of his freehold, or be exiled or deprived of his privileges, franchises, life, liberty or property but by due process of law.

That no person ought to be put twice in jeopardy of life or limb for one and the same offence, nor, unless in case of impeachment, be punished more than once for the same offence.

That every person restrained of his liberty is entitled to an enquiry into the lawfulness of such restraint, and to a removal thereof if unlawful, and that such enquiry and removal ought not to be denied or delayed, except when on account of public danger the congress shall suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus.

That excessive bail ought not to be required; nor excessive fines imposed; nor cruel or unusual punishments inflicted.

That (except in the government of the land and naval forces, and of the militia when in actual service, and in cases of impeachment) a presentment or indictment by a grand jury ought to be observed as a necessary preliminary to the trial of all crimes cognizable by the judiciary of the United States, and such trial should be speedy, public, and by an impartial jury of the county where the crime was committed; and that no person can be found guilty without the unanimous consent of such jury. But in cases of crimes not committed within any county of any of the United States, and in cases of crimes committed within any county in which a general Insurrection may prevail, or which may be in the possession of a foreign enemy, the enquiry and trial may be in such county as the Congress shall by law direct; which county in the two cases last mentioned should be as near as conveniently may be to that county in which the crime may have been committed.

And that in all criminal prosecutions, the accused ought to be informed of the cause and nature of his accusation, to be confronted with his accusers and the witnesses against him, to have the means of producing his witnesses, and the assistance of counsel for his defense, and should not be compelled to give evidence against himself.

That the trial by jury in the extent that it obtains by the common law of England is one of the greatest securities to the rights of a free people, and ought to remain inviolate.

That every freeman has a right to be secure from all unreasonable searches and seizures of his person his papers or his property, and therefore, that all warrants to search suspected places or seize any freeman his papers or property, without information upon oath or affirmation of sufficient cause, are grievous and oppressive; and that all general warrants (or such in which the place or person suspected are not particularly designated) are dangerous and ought not to be granted.

That the people have a right peaceably to assemble together to consult for their common good, or to instruct their Representatives; and that every person has a right to petition or apply to the legislature for redress of grievances.

That the freedom of the press ought not to be violated or restrained.

That there should be once in four years an election of the President and Vice President, so that no officer who may be appointed by the Congress to act as President in case of the removal, death, resignation or inability of the President and Vice President can in any case continue to act beyond the termination of the period for which the last President and Vice President were elected.

That nothing contained in the said Constitution is to be construed to prevent the legislature of any state from passing laws at its discretion from time to time to divide such state into convenient districts, and to apportion its Representatives to and amongst such districts.

That the prohibition contained in the said Constitution against ex post facto laws, extends only to laws concerning crimes.

That all appeals in causes determinable according to the course of the common law, ought to be by writ of error [2]  and not otherwise.

That the judicial power of the United States in cases in which a state may be a party, does not extend to criminal prosecutions, or to authorize any suit by any person against a state.

That the judicial power of the United States as to controversies between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states is not to be construed to extend to any other controversies between them except those which relate to such lands, so claimed under grants of different states.

That the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of the United States, or of any other court to be instituted by the Congress, is not in any case to be increased enlarged or extended by any fiction, collusion, or mere suggestion. And that no treaty is to be construed so to operate as to alter the constitution of any state.

Under these impressions and declaring that the rights aforesaid cannot be abridged or violated, and that the explanations aforesaid are consistent with the said Constitution, and in confidence that the amendments which shall have been proposed to the said Constitution will receive an early and mature consideration: We the said delegates, in the name and in the behalf of the people of the State of New York do by these presents assent to and ratify the said Constitution. In full confidence nevertheless that until a convention shall be called and convened for proposing amendments to the said Constitution, the militia of this state will not be continued in service out of this state for a longer term than six weeks without the consent of the legislature thereof; that the Congress will not make or alter any regulation in this state respecting the times places and manner of holding elections for Senators or Representatives unless the legislature of this state shall neglect or refuse to make laws or regulations for the purpose, or from any circumstance be incapable of making the same, and that in those cases such power will only be exercised until the legislature of this state shall make provision in the premises; that no excise [3]  will be imposed on any article of the growth, production, or manufacture of the United States, or any of them within this state, ardent spirits excepted; and that the Congress will not lay direct taxes [4]  within this state, but when the monies arising from the impost [5]  and excise shall be insufficient for the public exigencies, nor then, until Congress shall first have made a requisition upon this state to assess levy and pay the amount of such requisition made agreeably to the census fixed in the said Constitution in such way and manner as the legislature of this state shall judge best, but that in such case, if the state shall neglect or refuse to pay its proportion pursuant to such requisition, then the Congress may assess and levy this state’s proportion together with interest at the rate of six per centum per annum from the time at which the same was required to be paid.

Done in convention at Poughkeepsie in the County of Dutchess in the State of New York the twenty sixth day of July in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty-eight.

By Order of the Convention.

Geo: Clinton president

John McKesson

Abm. B. Bancker

Secretaries

AND the Convention do in the name and behalf of the people of the State of New York enjoin it upon their Representatives in the Congress, to exert all their Influence, and use all reasonable means to obtain a ratification of the following amendments to the said Constitution in the manner prescribed therein; and in all laws to be passed by the Congress in the meantime to conform to the spirit of the said amendments as far as the Constitution will admit.

That there shall be one Representative for every thirty thousand Inhabitants, according to the enumeration or census mentioned in the Constitution, until the whole number of Representatives amounts to two hundred; after which that number shall be continued or increased but not diminished, as Congress shall direct, and according to such ratio as the Congress shall fix, in conformity to the rule prescribed for the apportionment of Representatives and direct taxes.

That the Congress do not impose any excise on any article (except ardent spirits) of the growth, production, or manufacture of the United States, or any of them.

That Congress do not lay direct taxes but when the monies arising from the impost and excise shall be insufficient for the public exigencies, nor then until Congress shall first have made a requisition upon the states to assess levy and pay their respective proportions of such requisition, agreeably to the census fixed in the said Constitution, in such way and manner as the legislatures of the respective states shall judge best; and in such case, if any state shall neglect or refuse to pay its proportion pursuant to such requisition, then Congress may assess and levy such states proportion, together with interest at the rate of six per centum per annum, from the time of payment prescribed in such requisition.

That the Congress shall not make or alter any regulation in any state respecting the times places and manner of holding elections for Senators or Representatives, unless the legislature of such state shall neglect or refuse to make laws or regulations for the purpose, or from any circumstance be incapable of making the same; and then only until the legislature of such state shall make provision in the premises; provided that Congress may prescribe the time for the election of Representatives.

That no persons except natural born citizens, or such as were citizens on or before the fourth day of July one thousand seven hundred and seventy-six, or such as held commissions under the United States during the war, and have at any time since the fourth day of July one thousand seven hundred and seventy six become citizens of one or other of the United States, and who shall be freeholders, shall be eligible to the places of President, Vice President, or members of either House of the Congress of the United States.

That the Congress do not grant monopolies or erect any company with exclusive advantages of commerce.

That no standing army or regular troops shall be raised or kept up in time of peace, without the consent of two-thirds of the Senators and Representatives present, in each House.

That no money be borrowed on the credit of the United States without the assent of two-thirds of the Senators and Representatives present in each House.

That the Congress shall not declare war without the concurrence of two-thirds of the Senators and Representatives present in each House.

That the privilege of the habeas corpus shall not by any law be suspended for a longer term than six months, or until twenty days after the meeting of the Congress next following the passing of the act for such suspension.

That the right of the Congress to exercise exclusive legislation over such district, not exceeding ten miles square, as may by cession of a particular state, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, shall not be so exercised, as to exempt the inhabitants of such district from paying the like taxes, imposts, duties, [6]  and excises, as shall be imposed on the other inhabitants of the state in which such district may be; and that no person shall be privileged within the said district from arrest for crimes committed or debts contracted out of the said district.

That the right of exclusive legislation with respect to such places as may be purchased for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards and other needful buildings shall not authorize the Congress to make any law to prevent the laws of the states respectively in which they may be from extending to such places in all civil and criminal matters except as to such persons as shall be in the service of the United States; nor to them with respect to crimes committed without such places.

That the compensation for the Senators and Representatives be ascertained by standing laws; and that no alteration of the existing rate of compensation shall operate for the benefit of the Representatives, until after a subsequent election shall have been had.

That the journals of the Congress shall be published at least once a year, with the exception of such parts relating to treaties or military operations, as in the judgment of either House shall require secrecy; and that both Houses of Congress shall always keep their doors open during their sessions, unless the business may in their opinion require secrecy. That the yeas & nays shall be entered on the journals whenever two members in either House may require it.

That no capitation tax [7]  shall ever be laid by the Congress.

That no person be eligible as a Senator for more than six years in any term of twelve years; and that the legislatures of the respective states may recall their Senators or either of them, and elect others in their stead, to serve the remainder of the time for which the Senators so recalled were appointed.

That no Senator or Representative shall during the time for which he was elected be appointed to any office under the authority of the United States.

That the authority given to the Executives of the States to fill the vacancies of Senators be abolished, and that such vacancies be filled by the respective legislatures.

That the power of Congress to pass uniform laws concerning bankruptcy shall only extend to merchants and other traders; and that the states respectively may pass laws for the relief of other insolvent debtors.

That no person shall be eligible to the office of President of the United States a third time.

That the Executive shall not grant pardons for treason, unless with the consent of the Congress; but may at his discretion grant reprieves [8]  to persons convicted of treason, until their cases, can be laid before the Congress.

That the President or person exercising his powers for the time being, shall not command an army in the field in person, without the previous desire of the Congress.

That all letters patent, [9]  commissions, pardons, writs, [10]  and process of the United States, shall run in the name of the people of the United States, and be tested in the name of the President of the United States, or the person exercising his powers for the time being, or the first judge of the court out of which the same shall issue, as the case may be.

That the Congress shall not constitute ordain or establish any tribunals or inferior courts, with any other than appellate jurisdiction, except such as may be necessary for the trial of causes of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction, and for the trial of piracies and felonies committed on the high seas; and in all other cases to which the judicial power of the United States extends, and in which the Supreme Court of the United States has not original jurisdiction, the causes shall be heard, tried, and determined in some one of the State courts, with the right of appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States, or other proper tribunal to be established for that purpose by the Congress, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.

That the court for the trial of impeachments shall consist of the Senate, the judges of the Supreme Court of the United States, and the first or senior judge for the time being, of the highest court of general and ordinary common law jurisdiction in each State; that the Congress shall by standing laws designate the courts in the respective states answering this description, and in states having no courts exactly answering this description, shall designate some other court, preferring such if any there be, whose judge or judges may hold their places during good behavior.

Provided that no more than one judge, other than judges of the Supreme Court of the United States, shall come from one state. That the Congress be authorized to pass laws for compensating the said judges for such services and for compelling their attendance and that a majority at least of the said judges shall be requisite to constitute the said court. That no person impeached shall sit as a member thereof. That each member shall previous to the entering upon any trial take an oath or affirmation, honestly and impartially to hear and determine the cause and that a majority of the members present shall be necessary to a conviction.

That persons aggrieved by any judgment, sentence or decree of the Supreme Court of the United States, in any cause in which that court has original jurisdiction, with such exceptions, and under such regulations, as the Congress shall make concerning the same, shall, upon application, have a commission to be issued by the President of the United States, to such men learned in the law as he shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate appoint, not less than seven, authorizing such commissioners, or any seven or more of them, to correct the errors in such judgment or to review such sentence and decree, as the case may be, and to do justice to the parties in the premises.

That no judge of the Supreme Court of the United States shall hold any other office under the United States, or any of them.

That the judicial power of the United States shall extend to no controversies respecting land, unless it relate to claims of territory or jurisdiction between states, or to claims of land between individuals, or between states and individuals under the grants of different states.

That the militia of any state shall not be compelled to serve without the limits of the state for a longer term than six weeks, without the consent of the legislature thereof.

That the words “without the consent of the Congress” in the seventh clause of the ninth section of the first article of the Constitution, be expunged. [11]

That the Senators and Representatives and all executive and judicial officers of the United States shall be bound by oath or affirmation not to infringe or violate the Constitutions or rights of the respective states.

That the legislatures of the respective states may make provision by law, that the electors of the election districts to be by them appointed shall choose a citizen of the United States who shall have been an inhabitant of such district for the term of one year immediately preceding the time of his election, for one of the Representatives of such State.

Done in convention at Poughkeepsie in the county of Dutchess in the State of New York the twenty-sixth day of July in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty-eight.

• A writ from a Court of Appeals to the court that heard the case under appeal requiring that the court send the trial record to the Court of Appeals.
• a tax on goods bought or sold within a country
•  a tax on individuals
• a tax on items imported
• a tax on imported goods
•  a tax on an individual at a fixed rate
• cancel or delay punishment
• a patent or legal monopoly over an invention
• written order issued by a court
• An apparent reference to the Article I, section 9 clause “No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no person holding any office of profit and trust under them, shall, without the consent of the Congress, accept of any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any king, prince, or foreign state.”

New York Ratifying Convention

• June 17, 1788

Introduction

New York followed Virginia’s example (1788)  of distinguishing between amendments that went to the heart of the proposed Constitution on the one hand, and on the other, a bill of rights that would be a “civic education” reminder to the people concerning what was at stake, as well as a constraint on the abuse of power by elected or appointed officials.

The delegates made their way through the Constitution from start to finish. Next came the big question. Should the Constitution be ratified “conditionally” on the adoption of proposals for amendments and a bill of rights or with “full confidence” that the First Congress would actively pursue the adoption of amendments and a bill of rights? John Lansing and Abraham Yates—New York delegates who attended and left the Philadelphia Convention halfway through—and Governor George Clinton supported conditional ratification, going so far as to suggest that if these conditions were not met in the First Congress, then New York should consider seceding from the union. They were particularly interested in the adoption of the thirty-one amendment proposals that directly confronted the work of the Framers. Alexander Hamilton, and the prominent Antifederalist politician and writer Melancton Smith, supported the “full confidence” approach with particular emphasis on the adoption of a bill of rights. Going into the Convention, John Lansing and Robert Yates had the votes to reject the Constitution: 46–19. The Constitution was adopted however, without conditions, on July 25 by a vote of 30–27. Smith, who may have had a hand in the Federal Farmer essays, as well as authoring the Brutus essays, persuaded more than ten Antifederalists to vote in favor of adopting the Constitution with the expectation that the First Congress would revisit the issue of Amendments and a Bill of Rights. Besides, argued Smith, the Constitution had already been adopted by ten states. Wasn’t it better to accept adoption and seek relief in the First Congress than make a petulant statement? Eight delegates, including Governor Clinton, the presumed author of the Antifederalist Cato essays, abstained.

Source: The Debates in the several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution, as Recommended by the General Convention at Philadelphia in 1787 , 2d ed., with considerable additions. Collected and rev. from contemporary publications, by Jonathan Elliot. Published under the sanction of Congress. (1836), 5 vols.; https://goo.gl/yRg4Q7 .

Bill of Rights

We the delegates of the people of the State of New York, duly elected and met in convention, having maturely considered the Constitution for the United States of America, agreed to on the seventeenth day of September, in the year one thousand seven hundred and eighty-seven, by the Convention then assembled at Philadelphia in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (a copy whereof precedes these presents) and having also seriously and deliberately considered the present situation of the United States, do declare and make known.

That all power is originally vested in and consequently derived from the people, and that government is instituted by them for their common Interest protection and security.

That the enjoyment of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are essential rights which every government ought to respect and preserve.

That the powers of government may be reassumed by the people, when so ever it shall become necessary to their happiness; that every power, jurisdiction and right, which is not by the said Constitution clearly delegated to the Congress of the United States, or the departments of the government thereof, remains to the people of the several states, or to their respective state governments to whom they may have granted the same. And that those clauses in the said Constitution, which declare, that Congress shall not have or exercise certain powers, do not imply that Congress is entitled to any powers not given by the said Constitution; but such clauses are to be construed either as exceptions to certain specified powers, or as inserted merely for greater caution.

That the people have an equal, natural and unalienable right, freely and peaceably to exercise their religion according to the dictates of conscience, and that no religious sect or society ought to be favored or established by law in preference of others.

That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well regulated militia, including the body of the people capable of bearing arms is the proper, natural and safe defense of a free state.

That the militia should not be subject to martial law except in time of war, rebellion or insurrection.

That standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, and ought not to be kept up, except in cases of necessity; and that at all times, the military should be under strict subordination to the civil power.

That in time of peace no soldier ought to be quartered in any house without the consent of the owner, and in time of war only by the civil magistrate in such manner as the laws may direct.

That no person ought to be taken imprisoned or disseized [1] of his freehold, or be exiled or deprived of his privileges, franchises, life, liberty or property but by due process of law.

That no person ought to be put twice in jeopardy of life or limb for one and the same offence, nor, unless in case of impeachment, be punished more than once for the same offence.

That every person restrained of his liberty is entitled to an enquiry into the lawfulness of such restraint, and to a removal thereof if unlawful, and that such enquiry and removal ought not to be denied or delayed, except when on account of public danger the congress shall suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus.

That excessive bail ought not to be required; nor excessive fines imposed; nor cruel or unusual punishments inflicted.

That (except in the government of the land and naval forces, and of the militia when in actual service, and in cases of impeachment) a presentment or indictment by a grand jury ought to be observed as a necessary preliminary to the trial of all crimes cognizable by the judiciary of the United States, and such trial should be speedy, public, and by an impartial jury of the county where the crime was committed; and that no person can be found guilty without the unanimous consent of such jury. But in cases of crimes not committed within any county of any of the United States, and in cases of crimes committed within any county in which a general Insurrection may prevail, or which may be in the possession of a foreign enemy, the enquiry and trial may be in such county as the Congress shall by law direct; which county in the two cases last mentioned should be as near as conveniently may be to that county in which the crime may have been committed.

And that in all criminal prosecutions, the accused ought to be informed of the cause and nature of his accusation, to be confronted with his accusers and the witnesses against him, to have the means of producing his witnesses, and the assistance of counsel for his defense, and should not be compelled to give evidence against himself.

That the trial by jury in the extent that it obtains by the common law of England is one of the greatest securities to the rights of a free people, and ought to remain inviolate.

That every freeman has a right to be secure from all unreasonable searches and seizures of his person his papers or his property, and therefore, that all warrants to search suspected places or seize any freeman his papers or property, without information upon oath or affirmation of sufficient cause, are grievous and oppressive; and that all general warrants (or such in which the place or person suspected are not particularly designated) are dangerous and ought not to be granted.

That the people have a right peaceably to assemble together to consult for their common good, or to instruct their Representatives; and that every person has a right to petition or apply to the legislature for redress of grievances.

That the freedom of the press ought not to be violated or restrained.

That there should be once in four years an election of the President and Vice President, so that no officer who may be appointed by the Congress to act as President in case of the removal, death, resignation or inability of the President and Vice President can in any case continue to act beyond the termination of the period for which the last President and Vice President were elected.

That nothing contained in the said Constitution is to be construed to prevent the legislature of any state from passing laws at its discretion from time to time to divide such state into convenient districts, and to apportion its Representatives to and amongst such districts.

That the prohibition contained in the said Constitution against ex post facto laws, extends only to laws concerning crimes.

That all appeals in causes determinable according to the course of the common law, ought to be by writ of error [2] and not otherwise.

That the judicial power of the United States in cases in which a state may be a party, does not extend to criminal prosecutions, or to authorize any suit by any person against a state.

That the judicial power of the United States as to controversies between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states is not to be construed to extend to any other controversies between them except those which relate to such lands, so claimed under grants of different states.

That the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of the United States, or of any other court to be instituted by the Congress, is not in any case to be increased enlarged or extended by any fiction, collusion, or mere suggestion. And that no treaty is to be construed so to operate as to alter the constitution of any state.

Under these impressions and declaring that the rights aforesaid cannot be abridged or violated, and that the explanations aforesaid are consistent with the said Constitution, and in confidence that the amendments which shall have been proposed to the said Constitution will receive an early and mature consideration: We the said delegates, in the name and in the behalf of the people of the State of New York do by these presents assent to and ratify the said Constitution. In full confidence nevertheless that until a convention shall be called and convened for proposing amendments to the said Constitution, the militia of this state will not be continued in service out of this state for a longer term than six weeks without the consent of the legislature thereof; that the Congress will not make or alter any regulation in this state respecting the times places and manner of holding elections for Senators or Representatives unless the legislature of this state shall neglect or refuse to make laws or regulations for the purpose, or from any circumstance be incapable of making the same, and that in those cases such power will only be exercised until the legislature of this state shall make provision in the premises; that no excise [3] will be imposed on any article of the growth, production, or manufacture of the United States, or any of them within this state, ardent spirits excepted; and that the Congress will not lay direct taxes [4] within this state, but when the monies arising from the impost [5] and excise shall be insufficient for the public exigencies, nor then, until Congress shall first have made a requisition upon this state to assess levy and pay the amount of such requisition made agreeably to the census fixed in the said Constitution in such way and manner as the legislature of this state shall judge best, but that in such case, if the state shall neglect or refuse to pay its proportion pursuant to such requisition, then the Congress may assess and levy this state’s proportion together with interest at the rate of six per centum per annum from the time at which the same was required to be paid.

Done in convention at Poughkeepsie in the County of Dutchess in the State of New York the twenty sixth day of July in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty-eight.

By Order of the Convention.

Geo: Clinton president

John McKesson

Abm. B. Bancker

Secretaries

AND the Convention do in the name and behalf of the people of the State of New York enjoin it upon their Representatives in the Congress, to exert all their Influence, and use all reasonable means to obtain a ratification of the following amendments to the said Constitution in the manner prescribed therein; and in all laws to be passed by the Congress in the meantime to conform to the spirit of the said amendments as far as the Constitution will admit.

That there shall be one Representative for every thirty thousand Inhabitants, according to the enumeration or census mentioned in the Constitution, until the whole number of Representatives amounts to two hundred; after which that number shall be continued or increased but not diminished, as Congress shall direct, and according to such ratio as the Congress shall fix, in conformity to the rule prescribed for the apportionment of Representatives and direct taxes.

That the Congress do not impose any excise on any article (except ardent spirits) of the growth, production, or manufacture of the United States, or any of them.

That Congress do not lay direct taxes but when the monies arising from the impost and excise shall be insufficient for the public exigencies, nor then until Congress shall first have made a requisition upon the states to assess levy and pay their respective proportions of such requisition, agreeably to the census fixed in the said Constitution, in such way and manner as the legislatures of the respective states shall judge best; and in such case, if any state shall neglect or refuse to pay its proportion pursuant to such requisition, then Congress may assess and levy such states proportion, together with interest at the rate of six per centum per annum, from the time of payment prescribed in such requisition.

That the Congress shall not make or alter any regulation in any state respecting the times places and manner of holding elections for Senators or Representatives, unless the legislature of such state shall neglect or refuse to make laws or regulations for the purpose, or from any circumstance be incapable of making the same; and then only until the legislature of such state shall make provision in the premises; provided that Congress may prescribe the time for the election of Representatives.

That no persons except natural born citizens, or such as were citizens on or before the fourth day of July one thousand seven hundred and seventy-six, or such as held commissions under the United States during the war, and have at any time since the fourth day of July one thousand seven hundred and seventy six become citizens of one or other of the United States, and who shall be freeholders, shall be eligible to the places of President, Vice President, or members of either House of the Congress of the United States.

That the Congress do not grant monopolies or erect any company with exclusive advantages of commerce.

That no standing army or regular troops shall be raised or kept up in time of peace, without the consent of two-thirds of the Senators and Representatives present, in each House.

That no money be borrowed on the credit of the United States without the assent of two-thirds of the Senators and Representatives present in each House.

That the Congress shall not declare war without the concurrence of two-thirds of the Senators and Representatives present in each House.

That the privilege of the habeas corpus shall not by any law be suspended for a longer term than six months, or until twenty days after the meeting of the Congress next following the passing of the act for such suspension.

That the right of the Congress to exercise exclusive legislation over such district, not exceeding ten miles square, as may by cession of a particular state, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, shall not be so exercised, as to exempt the inhabitants of such district from paying the like taxes, imposts, duties, [6] and excises, as shall be imposed on the other inhabitants of the state in which such district may be; and that no person shall be privileged within the said district from arrest for crimes committed or debts contracted out of the said district.

That the right of exclusive legislation with respect to such places as may be purchased for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards and other needful buildings shall not authorize the Congress to make any law to prevent the laws of the states respectively in which they may be from extending to such places in all civil and criminal matters except as to such persons as shall be in the service of the United States; nor to them with respect to crimes committed without such places.

That the compensation for the Senators and Representatives be ascertained by standing laws; and that no alteration of the existing rate of compensation shall operate for the benefit of the Representatives, until after a subsequent election shall have been had.

That the journals of the Congress shall be published at least once a year, with the exception of such parts relating to treaties or military operations, as in the judgment of either House shall require secrecy; and that both Houses of Congress shall always keep their doors open during their sessions, unless the business may in their opinion require secrecy. That the yeas & nays shall be entered on the journals whenever two members in either House may require it.

That no capitation tax [7] shall ever be laid by the Congress.

That no person be eligible as a Senator for more than six years in any term of twelve years; and that the legislatures of the respective states may recall their Senators or either of them, and elect others in their stead, to serve the remainder of the time for which the Senators so recalled were appointed.

That no Senator or Representative shall during the time for which he was elected be appointed to any office under the authority of the United States.

That the authority given to the Executives of the States to fill the vacancies of Senators be abolished, and that such vacancies be filled by the respective legislatures.

That the power of Congress to pass uniform laws concerning bankruptcy shall only extend to merchants and other traders; and that the states respectively may pass laws for the relief of other insolvent debtors.

That no person shall be eligible to the office of President of the United States a third time.

That the Executive shall not grant pardons for treason, unless with the consent of the Congress; but may at his discretion grant reprieves [8] to persons convicted of treason, until their cases, can be laid before the Congress.

That the President or person exercising his powers for the time being, shall not command an army in the field in person, without the previous desire of the Congress.

That all letters patent, [9] commissions, pardons, writs, [10] and process of the United States, shall run in the name of the people of the United States, and be tested in the name of the President of the United States, or the person exercising his powers for the time being, or the first judge of the court out of which the same shall issue, as the case may be.

That the Congress shall not constitute ordain or establish any tribunals or inferior courts, with any other than appellate jurisdiction, except such as may be necessary for the trial of causes of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction, and for the trial of piracies and felonies committed on the high seas; and in all other cases to which the judicial power of the United States extends, and in which the Supreme Court of the United States has not original jurisdiction, the causes shall be heard, tried, and determined in some one of the State courts, with the right of appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States, or other proper tribunal to be established for that purpose by the Congress, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.

That the court for the trial of impeachments shall consist of the Senate, the judges of the Supreme Court of the United States, and the first or senior judge for the time being, of the highest court of general and ordinary common law jurisdiction in each State; that the Congress shall by standing laws designate the courts in the respective states answering this description, and in states having no courts exactly answering this description, shall designate some other court, preferring such if any there be, whose judge or judges may hold their places during good behavior.

Provided that no more than one judge, other than judges of the Supreme Court of the United States, shall come from one state. That the Congress be authorized to pass laws for compensating the said judges for such services and for compelling their attendance and that a majority at least of the said judges shall be requisite to constitute the said court. That no person impeached shall sit as a member thereof. That each member shall previous to the entering upon any trial take an oath or affirmation, honestly and impartially to hear and determine the cause and that a majority of the members present shall be necessary to a conviction.

That persons aggrieved by any judgment, sentence or decree of the Supreme Court of the United States, in any cause in which that court has original jurisdiction, with such exceptions, and under such regulations, as the Congress shall make concerning the same, shall, upon application, have a commission to be issued by the President of the United States, to such men learned in the law as he shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate appoint, not less than seven, authorizing such commissioners, or any seven or more of them, to correct the errors in such judgment or to review such sentence and decree, as the case may be, and to do justice to the parties in the premises.

That no judge of the Supreme Court of the United States shall hold any other office under the United States, or any of them.

That the judicial power of the United States shall extend to no controversies respecting land, unless it relate to claims of territory or jurisdiction between states, or to claims of land between individuals, or between states and individuals under the grants of different states.

That the militia of any state shall not be compelled to serve without the limits of the state for a longer term than six weeks, without the consent of the legislature thereof.

That the words “without the consent of the Congress” in the seventh clause of the ninth section of the first article of the Constitution, be expunged. [11]

That the Senators and Representatives and all executive and judicial officers of the United States shall be bound by oath or affirmation not to infringe or violate the Constitutions or rights of the respective states.

That the legislatures of the respective states may make provision by law, that the electors of the election districts to be by them appointed shall choose a citizen of the United States who shall have been an inhabitant of such district for the term of one year immediately preceding the time of his election, for one of the Representatives of such State.

Done in convention at Poughkeepsie in the county of Dutchess in the State of New York the twenty-sixth day of July in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty-eight.

• 1. deprived
• 2. A writ from a Court of Appeals to the court that heard the case under appeal requiring that the court send the trial record to the Court of Appeals.
• 3. a tax on goods bought or sold within a country
• 4.  a tax on individuals
• 5. a tax on items imported
• 6. a tax on imported goods
• 7.  a tax on an individual at a fixed rate
• 8. cancel or delay punishment
• 9. a patent or legal monopoly over an invention
• 10. written order issued by a court
• 11. An apparent reference to the Article I, section 9 clause “No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no person holding any office of profit and trust under them, shall, without the consent of the Congress, accept of any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any king, prince, or foreign state.”

Speech at the Virginia Ratifying Convention

Federalist 79, see our list of programs.

Conversation-based seminars for collegial PD, one-day and multi-day seminars, graduate credit seminars (MA degree), online and in-person.

Check out our collection of primary source readers

Coming soon! World War I & the 1920s!

The essay urging ratification during New York ratification debates were known as?

The federalist paper supported it The anti-federalist papers opposed it

THE URGING RATAFICATION DURING THE NEW YORK RATIFICATION DEBATES WERE KNOWN AS The Federalist Papers.

Add your answer:

What type of essay is on summer by lorraine hansberry?

It is a persuasive essay!

Compare and Contrast the North and South before and during the Civil War What advantages did each side have?

What you are asking for is a considerable amount of work in the form of a essay question. That is something you need to do for yourself.

How to write an essay on why do you want to study in the us?

Like in any essay, students need a thesis statement when they begin an essay. A thesis statement is the main idea of the essay a student is going to write. An essay must have an introduction, body and conclusion. The introduction should include a thesis statement and three to four strong points to support what the essay is going to discuss. Students should remember that the introduction will only introduce these points. The actual support for these points will take place in the body paragraph. The conclusion should revisit the main points for the reader.

Essay in Hindi on upbhokta vad?

Why are you not doing your history essay.

becasue you are lazy

Top Categories

• Local Politics
• Editorials & Letters
• Northern Kentucky
• National Politics

When does the time change? Here's when daylight saving time ends in 2024

Fall is around the corner , which means the end of this year's daylight saving time is coming up.

In November, millions of Americans will turn back their clocks, marking the end of  daylight saving time  in 2024. The controversial practice of "springing forward" and "falling back" has been observed in  most states for decades .

Under the current daylight saving period, most Americans will lose an hour of sleep on the second Sunday of March and gain an hour on the first Sunday of November.

Here's what to know about the end of daylight saving time in 2024.

When does daylight saving time end? When to change clocks in fall 2024

In 2024, daylight saving time ends at 2 a.m. Sunday, Nov. 3 .

Why do we gain an hour in November?

We gain an hour in November to accommodate for more daylight in the mornings. When we  "spring forward" in March , it's to add more daylight in the summer evenings. 

In the Northern Hemisphere, the autumnal equinox is Sept. 22, marking the start of the fall season. 

Why do we have daylight saving time?

In 1966, Congress passed the Uniform Time Act, standardizing the length of daylight saving time, which runs from March to November. 

Daylight saving time begins each year on the second Sunday of March and ends on the first Sunday of November.

The Department of Transportation said daylight saving time saves energy, prevents traffic injuries and reduces crime. The DOT oversees time zones and the uniform observance of daylight saving time because the railroad industry first instituted time standards.

What states have gotten rid of daylight saving time?

Not all states and U.S. territories participate in daylight saving time. 

Hawaii and Arizona (except the Navajo Nation) do not observe daylight saving time, nor do the territories of American Samoa, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands.

Who created daylight saving time?

Benjamin Franklin is often credited with first proposing daylight saving in his 1784 essay, "An Economical Project." However, the idea wasn't seriously considered until more than a century later when William Willetts, a British builder, fiercely advocated for it. 

The current daylight saving time format was proposed in New Zealand by entomologist George Hudson.

In 1895, he recommended a two-hour time change because he wanted more daylight after work to hunt for bugs in the summer.

Is daylight saving time ending in Ohio?

Ohio's House State and Local Government Committee  passed House Concurrent Resolution 7  in October 2023, urging Congress to enact the Sunshine Uniformity Act. This act would make daylight saving time permanent and end the bi-annual tradition of changing the clocks.

State representatives Rodney Creech, R-West Alexandria, and Bob Peterson, R-Sabina, sponsored the bill .

Under this resolution, passed by the Ohio House, switching to permanent daylight saving time would increase the hours of sunlight in the evenings during the winter months, which helps combat mental health issues, Creech said.

However, the bill did not pass the U.S. House of Representatives, and President Joe Biden did not sign it into law.

Is it daylight saving or daylight savings?

While it's common to hear "daylight savings" with an "s," the correct term is "daylight saving time," since the practice saves daylight.

Emily DeLetter, a trending news reporter for USA Today, contributed to this story.

The Constitution and Its Origins

The ratification of the constitution, learning objectives.

By the end of this section, you will be able to:

• Identify the steps required to ratify the Constitution
• Describe arguments the framers raised in support of a strong national government and counterpoints raised by the Anti-Federalists

On September 17, 1787, the delegates to the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia voted to approve the document they had drafted over the course of many months. Some did not support it, but the majority did. Before it could become the law of the land, however, the Constitution faced another hurdle. It had to be ratified by the states.

THE RATIFICATION PROCESS

Article VII, the final article of the Constitution, required that before the Constitution could become law and a new government could form, the document had to be ratified by nine of the thirteen states. Eleven days after the delegates at the Philadelphia convention approved it, copies of the Constitution were sent to each of the states, which were to hold ratifying conventions to either accept or reject it.

This approach to ratification was an unusual one. Since the authority inherent in the Articles of Confederation and the Confederation Congress had rested on the consent of the states, changes to the nation’s government should also have been ratified by the state legislatures. Instead, by calling upon state legislatures to hold ratification conventions to approve the Constitution, the framers avoided asking the legislators to approve a document that would require them to give up a degree of their own power. The men attending the ratification conventions would be delegates elected by their neighbors to represent their interests. They were not being asked to relinquish their power; in fact, they were being asked to place limits upon the power of their state legislators, whom they may not have elected in the first place. Finally, because the new nation was to be a republic in which power was held by the people through their elected representatives, it was considered appropriate to leave the ultimate acceptance or rejection of the Constitution to the nation’s citizens. If convention delegates, who were chosen by popular vote, approved it, then the new government could rightly claim that it ruled with the consent of the people.

The greatest sticking point when it came to ratification, as it had been at the Constitutional Convention itself, was the relative power of the state and federal governments. The framers of the Constitution believed that without the ability to maintain and command an army and navy, impose taxes, and force the states to comply with laws passed by Congress, the young nation would not survive for very long. But many people resisted increasing the powers of the national government at the expense of the states. Virginia’s Patrick Henry , for example, feared that the newly created office of president would place excessive power in the hands of one man. He also disapproved of the federal government’s new ability to tax its citizens. This right, Henry believed, should remain with the states.

Other delegates, such as Edmund Randolph of Virginia, disapproved of the Constitution because it created a new federal judicial system. Their fear was that the federal courts would be too far away from where those who were tried lived. State courts were located closer to the homes of both plaintiffs and defendants, and it was believed that judges and juries in state courts could better understand the actions of those who appeared before them. In response to these fears, the federal government created federal courts in each of the states as well as in Maine, which was then part of Massachusetts, and Kentucky, which was part of Virginia.

Perhaps the greatest source of dissatisfaction with the Constitution was that it did not guarantee protection of individual liberties. State governments had given jury trials to residents charged with violating the law and allowed their residents to possess weapons for their protection. Some had practiced religious tolerance as well. The Constitution, however, did not contain reassurances that the federal government would do so. Although it provided for habeas corpus and prohibited both a religious test for holding office and granting noble titles, some citizens feared the loss of their traditional rights and the violation of their liberties. This led many of the Constitution’s opponents to call for a bill of rights and the refusal to ratify the document without one. The lack of a bill of rights was especially problematic in Virginia, as the Virginia Declaration of Rights was the most extensive rights-granting document among the states. The promise that a bill of rights would be drafted for the Constitution persuaded delegates in many states to support ratification.

Thomas Jefferson on the Bill of Rights

John Adams and Thomas Jefferson carried on a lively correspondence regarding the ratification of the Constitution. In the following excerpt (reproduced as written) from a letter dated March 15, 1789, after the Constitution had been ratified by nine states but before it had been approved by all thirteen, Jefferson reiterates his previously expressed concerns that a bill of rights to protect citizens’ freedoms was necessary and should be added to the Constitution:

“In the arguments in favor of a declaration of rights, . . . I am happy to find that on the whole you are a friend to this amendment. The Declaration of rights is like all other human blessings alloyed with some inconveniences, and not accomplishing fully it’s object. But the good in this instance vastly overweighs the evil. . . . This instrument [the Constitution] forms us into one state as to certain objects, and gives us a legislative & executive body for these objects. It should therefore guard us against their abuses of power. . . . Experience proves the inefficacy of a bill of rights. True. But tho it is not absolutely efficacious under all circumstances, it is of great potency always, and rarely inefficacious. . . . There is a remarkeable difference between the . . . Inconveniences which attend a Declaration of rights, & those which attend the want of it. . . . The inconveniences of the want of a Declaration are permanent, afflicting & irreparable: they are in constant progression from bad to worse.” Letter from Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, March 15, 1789, https://www.gwu.edu/~ffcp/exhibit/p7/p7_1text.html.

What were some of the inconveniences of not having a bill of rights that Jefferson mentioned? Why did he decide in favor of having one?

It was clear how some states would vote. Smaller states, like Delaware, favored the Constitution. Equal representation in the Senate would give them a degree of equality with the larger states, and a strong national government with an army at its command would be better able to defend them than their state militias could. Larger states, however, had significant power to lose. They did not believe they needed the federal government to defend them and disliked the prospect of having to provide tax money to support the new government. Thus, from the very beginning, the supporters of the Constitution feared that New York, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, and Virginia would refuse to ratify it. That would mean all nine of the remaining states would have to, and Rhode Island, the smallest state, was unlikely to do so. It had not even sent delegates to the convention in Philadelphia. And even if it joined the other states in ratifying the document and the requisite nine votes were cast, the new nation would not be secure without its largest, wealthiest, and most populous states as members of the union.

THE RATIFICATION CAMPAIGN

On the question of ratification, citizens quickly separated into two groups: Federalists and Anti-Federalists. The Federalists supported it. They tended to be among the elite members of society—wealthy and well-educated landowners, businessmen, and former military commanders who believed a strong government would be better for both national defense and economic growth. A national currency, which the federal government had the power to create, would ease business transactions. The ability of the federal government to regulate trade and place tariffs on imports would protect merchants from foreign competition. Furthermore, the power to collect taxes would allow the national government to fund internal improvements like roads, which would also help businessmen. Support for the Federalists was especially strong in New England.

Opponents of ratification were called Anti-Federalists. Anti-Federalists feared the power of the national government and believed state legislatures, with which they had more contact, could better protect their freedoms. Although some Anti-Federalists, like Patrick Henry , were wealthy, most distrusted the elite and believed a strong federal government would favor the rich over those of “the middling sort.” This was certainly the fear of Melancton Smith , a New York merchant and landowner, who believed that power should rest in the hands of small, landowning farmers of average wealth who “are more temperate, of better morals and less ambitious than the great.”

Even members of the social elite, like Henry, feared that the centralization of power would lead to the creation of a political aristocracy, to the detriment of state sovereignty and individual liberty.

Related to these concerns were fears that the strong central government Federalists advocated for would levy taxes on farmers and planters, who lacked the hard currency needed to pay them. Many also believed Congress would impose tariffs on foreign imports that would make American agricultural products less welcome in Europe and in European colonies in the western hemisphere. For these reasons, Anti-Federalist sentiment was especially strong in the South.

Some Anti-Federalists also believed that the large federal republic that the Constitution would create could not work as intended. Americans had long believed that virtue was necessary in a nation where people governed themselves (i.e., the ability to put self-interest and petty concerns aside for the good of the larger community). In small republics, similarities among members of the community would naturally lead them to the same positions and make it easier for those in power to understand the needs of their neighbors. In a larger republic, one that encompassed nearly the entire Eastern Seaboard and ran west to the Appalachian Mountains, people would lack such a strong commonality of interests.

Likewise, Anti-Federalists argued, the diversity of religion tolerated by the Constitution would prevent the formation of a political community with shared values and interests. The Constitution contained no provisions for government support of churches or of religious education, and Article VI explicitly forbade the use of religious tests to determine eligibility for public office. This caused many, like Henry Abbot of North Carolina, to fear that government would be placed in the hands of “pagans . . . and Mahometans [Muslims].”

It is difficult to determine how many people were Federalists and how many were Anti-Federalists in 1787. The Federalists won the day, but they may not have been in the majority. First, the Federalist position tended to win support among businessmen, large farmers, and, in the South, plantation owners. These people tended to live along the Eastern Seaboard. In 1787, most of the states were divided into voting districts in a manner that gave more votes to the eastern part of the state than to the western part.

Thus, in some states, like Virginia and South Carolina, small farmers who may have favored the Anti-Federalist position were unable to elect as many delegates to state ratification conventions as those who lived in the east. Small settlements may also have lacked the funds to send delegates to the convention.

In all the states, educated men authored pamphlets and published essays and cartoons arguing either for or against ratification. Although many writers supported each position, it is the Federalist essays that are now best known. The arguments these authors put forth, along with explicit guarantees that amendments would be added to protect individual liberties, helped to sway delegates to ratification conventions in many states.

This Massachusetts Sentinel cartoon (a) encourages the state’s voters to join Georgia and neighboring Connecticut in ratifying the Constitution. Less than a month later, on February 6, 1788, Massachusetts became the sixth member of the newly formed federal union (b).

For obvious reasons, smaller, less populous states favored the Constitution and the protection of a strong federal government. As shown in, Delaware and New Jersey ratified the document within a few months after it was sent to them for approval in 1787. Connecticut ratified it early in 1788. Some of the larger states, such as Pennsylvania and Massachusetts, also voted in favor of the new government. New Hampshire became the ninth state to ratify the Constitution in the summer of 1788.

This timeline shows the order in which states ratified the new Constitution. Small states that would benefit from the protection of a larger union ratified the Constitution fairly quickly, such as Delaware and Connecticut. Larger, more populous states like Virginia and New York took longer. The last state to ratify was Rhode Island, a state that had always proven reluctant to act alongside the others.

Although the Constitution went into effect following ratification by New Hampshire, four states still remained outside the newly formed union. Two were the wealthy, populous states of Virginia and New York. In Virginia, James Madison’s active support and the intercession of George Washington, who wrote letters to the convention, changed the minds of many. Some who had initially opposed the Constitution, such as Edmund Randolph, were persuaded that the creation of a strong union was necessary for the country’s survival and changed their position. Other Virginia delegates were swayed by the promise that a bill of rights similar to the Virginia Declaration of Rights would be added after the Constitution was ratified. On June 25, 1788, Virginia became the tenth state to grant its approval.

The approval of New York was the last major hurdle. Facing considerable opposition to the Constitution in that state, Alexander Hamilton , James Madison , and John Jay wrote a series of essays, beginning in 1787, arguing for a strong federal government and support of the Constitution. Later compiled as The Federalist and now known as The Federalist Papers , these eighty-five essays were originally published in newspapers in New York and other states under the name of Publius, a supporter of the Roman Republic.

From 1787 to 1788, Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay authored a series of essays intended to convince Americans, especially New Yorkers, to support the new Constitution. These essays, which originally appeared in newspapers, were collected and published together under the title The Federalist in 1788. They are now known as The Federalist Papers.

The essays addressed a variety of issues that troubled citizens. For example, in Federalist No. 51, attributed to James Madison ( [link] ), the author assured readers they did not need to fear that the national government would grow too powerful. The federal system, in which power was divided between the national and state governments, and the division of authority within the federal government into separate branches would prevent any one part of the government from becoming too strong. Furthermore, tyranny could not arise in a government in which “the legislature necessarily predominates.” Finally, the desire of office holders in each branch of government to exercise the powers given to them, described as “personal motives,” would encourage them to limit any attempt by the other branches to overstep their authority. According to Madison , “Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.”

Other essays countered different criticisms made of the Constitution and echoed the argument in favor of a strong national government. In Federalist No. 35 , for example, Hamilton argued that people’s interests could in fact be represented by men who were not their neighbors. Indeed, Hamilton asked rhetorically, would American citizens best be served by a representative “whose observation does not travel beyond the circle of his neighbors and his acquaintances” or by someone with more extensive knowledge of the world? To those who argued that a merchant and land-owning elite would come to dominate Congress, Hamilton countered that the majority of men currently sitting in New York’s state senate and assembly were landowners of moderate wealth and that artisans usually chose merchants, “their natural patron[s] and friend[s],” to represent them. An aristocracy would not arise, and if it did, its members would have been chosen by lesser men. Similarly, Jay reminded New Yorkers in Federalist No. 2 that union had been the goal of Americans since the time of the Revolution. A desire for union was natural among people of such “similar sentiments” who “were united to each other by the strongest ties,” and the government proposed by the Constitution was the best means of achieving that union.

James Madison (a) played a vital role in the formation of the Constitution. He was an important participant in the Constitutional Convention and authored many of The Federalist Papers. Despite the fact that he did not believe that a Bill of Rights was necessary, he wrote one in order to allay the fears of those who believed the federal government was too powerful. He also served as Thomas Jefferson’s vice president and was elected president himself in 1808. Alexander Hamilton (b) was one of the greatest political minds of the early United States. He authored the majority of The Federalist Papers and served as Secretary of the Treasury in George Washington’s administration.

Objections that an elite group of wealthy and educated bankers, businessmen, and large landowners would come to dominate the nation’s politics were also addressed by Madison in Federalist No. 10 . Americans need not fear the power of factions or special interests, he argued, for the republic was too big and the interests of its people too diverse to allow the development of large, powerful political parties. Likewise, elected representatives, who were expected to “possess the most attractive merit,” would protect the government from being controlled by “an unjust and interested [biased in favor of their own interests] majority.”

For those who worried that the president might indeed grow too ambitious or king-like, Hamilton, in Federalist No. 68 , provided assurance that placing the leadership of the country in the hands of one person was not dangerous. Electors from each state would select the president. Because these men would be members of a “transient” body called together only for the purpose of choosing the president and would meet in separate deliberations in each state, they would be free of corruption and beyond the influence of the “heats and ferments” of the voters. Indeed, Hamilton argued in Federalist No. 70 , instead of being afraid that the president would become a tyrant, Americans should realize that it was easier to control one person than it was to control many. Furthermore, one person could also act with an “energy” that Congress did not possess. Making decisions alone, the president could decide what actions should be taken faster than could Congress, whose deliberations, because of its size, were necessarily slow. At times, the “decision, activity, secrecy, and dispatch” of the chief executive might be necessary.

The arguments of the Federalists were persuasive, but whether they actually succeeded in changing the minds of New Yorkers is unclear. Once Virginia ratified the Constitution on June 25, 1788, New York realized that it had little choice but to do so as well. If it did not ratify the Constitution, it would be the last large state that had not joined the union. Thus, on July 26, 1788, the majority of delegates to New York’s ratification convention voted to accept the Constitution. A year later, North Carolina became the twelfth state to approve. Alone and realizing it could not hope to survive on its own, Rhode Island became the last state to ratify, nearly two years after New York had done so.

Term Limits

One of the objections raised to the Constitution’s new government was that it did not set term limits for members of Congress or the president. Those who opposed a strong central government argued that this failure could allow a handful of powerful men to gain control of the nation and rule it for as long as they wished. Although the framers did not anticipate the idea of career politicians, those who supported the Constitution argued that reelecting the president and reappointing senators by state legislatures would create a body of experienced men who could better guide the country through crises. A president who did not prove to be a good leader would be voted out of office instead of being reelected. In fact, presidents long followed George Washington’s example and limited themselves to two terms. Only in 1951, after Franklin Roosevelt had been elected four times, was the Twenty-Second Amendment passed to restrict the presidency to two terms.

Are term limits a good idea? Should they have originally been included in the Constitution? Why or why not? Are there times when term limits might not be good?

Anti-Federalists objected to the power the Constitution gave the federal government and the absence of a bill of rights to protect individual liberties. The Federalists countered that a strong government was necessary to lead the new nation and promised to add a bill of rights to the Constitution. The Federalist Papers , in particular, argued in favor of ratification and sought to convince people that the new government would not become tyrannical. Finally, in June 1788, New Hampshire became the ninth state to approve the Constitution, making it the law of the land. The large and prosperous states of Virginia and New York followed shortly thereafter, and the remaining states joined as well.

Why were The Federalist Papers written?

• To encourage states to oppose the Constitution.
• To encourage New York to ratify the Constitution.
• To oppose the admission of slaveholding states to the federal union.
• To encourage people to vote for George Washington as the nation’s first president.

What argument did Alexander Hamilton use to convince people that it was not dangerous to place power in the hands of one man?

• That man would have to pass a religious test before he could become president; thus, citizens could be sure that he was of good character.
• One man could respond to crises more quickly than a group of men like Congress.
• It was easier to control the actions of one man than the actions of a group.
• both B and C

Why did so many people oppose ratification of the Constitution, and how was their opposition partly overcome?

• OpenStax American Government. Provided by : OpenStax CNX. Located at : http://cnx.org/contents/[email protected] . License : CC BY: Attribution . License Terms : Download for free at http://cnx.org/contents/[email protected]

Privacy Policy

Tuesday, August 27, 2024 86° Today's Paper

Hawaii’s visitor industry faces threat of hotel, airline strikes

By Allison Schaefers

Today • Updated 3 p.m.

Business Editors' Picks

• Share on Facebook
• Share by email

GEORGE F. LEE / [email protected]

U.S. Rep Jill Tokuda, a former Local 5 union member, helped out at the union’s headquarters on King Street as members prepared for a possible strike against seven Waikiki hotels. Local 5’s last strike, in 1990, lasted 22 days and involved union employees from 11 hotels.

Well over 100 members of Local 5 were on hand Monday at union headquarters on King Street preparing for an imminent strike against Waikiki hotels.

George F. Lee / [email protected]

Local 5 members mobilized and prepared signs Monday at union headquarters on King Street. The organization is an affiliate of Unite Here, an international union that now represents over 250,000 workers throughout the U.S. and Canada.

Select an option below to continue reading this premium story.

Already a Honolulu Star-Advertiser subscriber? Log in now to continue reading.

Get unlimited access

From as low as $12.95 /mo.

Rocky Higgins, who has worked as a bartender at the Princess Kaiulani Hotel for 30 years, signed a strike benefit card and made picket signs Monday in preparation for what could be Unite Here Local 5’s largest hotel strike in decades.

Higgins is among over 5,000 workers who have authorized a strike at the Sheraton Kauai Resort and seven Waikiki hotels: the Hilton Hawaiian Village Waikiki Beach Resort; Hyatt Regency Waikiki Beach Resort &Spa; Moana Surfrider — a Westin Resort Spa; The Royal Hawaiian, a Luxury Collection Resort; Sheraton Princess Kaiulani; Sheraton Waikiki; and the Waikiki Beach Marriott Resort &Spa.

The union has not made its strike plan clear, but has the power to call for a walkout at any time.

If the strike moves forward, it would be Local 5’s largest strike since 1990 when union workers from 11 hotels went on a 22-day strike. In 2018 some 2,700 Local 5 workers at five Marriott-managed hotels went on a 51-day strike that ended with the ratification of a contract that gave union members up to $6.13 an hour in pay and benefit increases over four years.

Higgins still remembers the challenges of the 2018 strike, but said it was worth it. He said the issues workers are fighting for this time around, like higher wages and better working conditions, are important, too, and will set “the tone for future negotiations.”

“We’re always in Hawaii struggling to make ends meet because of the economy. We’re just trying to keep up with inflation and everything else that’s going on. We are just carrying the torch as our members have done for us (before).”

Local 5’s strike preparations come as United Airlines flight attendants, who have been working under an amendable contract for nearly three years, also prepare to demonstrate nationwide and at Daniel K. Inouye International Airport on Wednesday where they will announce the results of their own strike authorization vote. If a strike is authorized, the union could call a strike anytime.

Cade Watanabe, Local 5 financial secretary-treasurer, said Monday at the union’s headquarters that he could not recall a time in recent history when there were hotel and airline strikes at the same time. Watanabe said Local 5 represents workers at Gate Gourmet, an independent provider of catering and provisioning services for airlines nationwide. A strike there was recently averted before the deadline.

Watanabe said Local 5 kicked off bargaining with Hilton, Hyatt, Marriott and Kyo-ya during a joint session on April 24, where the union outlined its major priorities, which were “wages and economics” and “workload.”

He said the union met with Kyo-ya and Marriott on July 29 and with Hilton on Aug. 1 and Hyatt on Aug. 6. But Watanabe said new bargaining dates have not been scheduled since workers took a strike vote Aug. 8.

The hotel companies did not immediately respond to the Honolulu Star-­Advertiser’s request for comment.

Watanabe said the union has asked for across-the-board raises of more than $12 an hour in wages and benefits over the next four years and has proposed a process that requires hotel owners and operators to work with the union to address workload and staffing challenges.

“They haven’t even met us halfway on the economics, and there’s been no meaningful counterproposal on workload and staffing,” Watanabe said. The union still abides by its slogan, “We still believe ‘One Job Should Be Enough,’ and has added the theme ‘Respect Our Work, Respect Our Guests.’”

The United Airlines pilots strike of 1985 had a substantial and cumulative effect on Hawaii’s economy, as did the 1990 and 2018 Local 5 hotel workers strikes. The threat of these new strikes comes as Hawaii’s visitor industry continues to experience dampening from the Aug. 8, 2023, Maui wildfires, which interrupted the state’s recovery after the COVID-19 downturn.

Keith Vieira, principal of KV &Associates, Hospitality Consulting, said, “The timing coudn’t be worse for really everyone involved. The industry still hasn’t recovered from the COVID pandemic and Maui fires, and this gives people more reasons not to come. It’s not good for the state. It will affect tax revenues and put people on unemployment. It’s not good for the people that we measure the least — like the mom-and-pop business owners and the lunch wagons.”

The potential strikes have added more uncertainty as the important Labor Day travel period approaches. The Transportation Security Administration is preparing to screen a record volume of more than 17 million people nationwide from Thursday through Sept. 4. The peak travel day is projected to be Friday, when TSA expects to screen 2.86 million people.

While summer travel to Hawaii has been down in the wake of the Maui wildfires, TSA had been expecting higher volumes of travelers for Hawaii, too.

Monica Salter, a spokesperson for Outrigger Hospitality Group, said in an email: “The rumored hotel strike in Waikiki could have far-reaching consequences for Hawaii’s economy — particularly in this downturn market. The last major strike in 2018 lasted for 51 days and didn’t just impact the hotel industry, but more importantly its workers; it also rippled through the broader economy, resulting in significant financial setbacks and lost tax revenue for Honolulu.

“The ongoing disruption — ranging from the relentless noise to the considerable loss of income for workers and their families caught in the crossfire — adds to the strain on our community,” she said. “Our commitment to providing a stable and supportive environment for our hosts remains unwavering, while also ensuring that our guests continue to have a positive experience.”

The Hawai‘i Tourism Authority has invested $1.6 million, and its private industry partners have invested tens of millions more into fall marketing to help invite visitors back to Hawaii. HTA contractor Hawai‘i Visitors and Convention Bureau has planned a huge marketing saturation starting Sept. 15 in Los Angeles and culminating Sept. 22 at a Los Angeles Rams home game against the San Francisco 49ers. During the effort, Gov. Josh Green and Maui Mayor Richard Bissen are expected to extend an invitation to travelers urging them to visit Hawaii.

Past Hawaii strikes have had a dampening impact on tourism arrivals or at least made the trip far less enjoyable for visitors. Local 5’s 1990 strike, according to Hono­lulu Advertiser newspaper clippings, was marred by high-profile confrontations between strikers and hotel security that attracted media attention on the mainland. As notoriety of that strike grew, so did the vacation cancellations.

The advent of social media and union members working across states has raised the stakes. Local 5 is an affiliate of Unite Here, an international union that now represents over 250,000 workers throughout the U.S. and Canada.

The 2018 Local 5 Hawaii hotel workers strike was part of a nationwide strike involving over 7,000 Marriott workers from 23 hotels in eight cities. If this latest strike moves forward, it also will have a national component.

Local 5 workers in Hawaii are among the thousands of workers nationwide who have authorized strikes at Hilton, Hyatt, Marriott and Omni properties in 11 cities including Baltimore; Boston; Honolulu; Greenwich and New Haven, Conn.; Oakland, Calif; Providence, R.I.; San Diego, San Francisco and San Jose, Calif.; and Seattle.

In 2023, Unite Here members won record contracts after messy rolling strikes at Los Angeles hotels and a 47-day strike at Detroit casinos.

Local 5 workers at the Ili­kai Hotel went on a one-day strike March 8, which also happened to be International Women’s Day, before the union and hotel company reached a strike-­ending agreement on the first new contract in more than five years.

Green marched with some 1,500 Local 5 workers on May 1 when they rallied in Waikiki to kick-start the latest round of bargaining. Watanabe said Honolulu Mayor Rick Blangiardi, Hono­lulu City Council Chair Tommy Waters and many other community members also have offered support.

U.S. Rep. Jill Tokuda helped workers make picket signs Monday.

Tokuda said her father was a Local 5 member and that she was a member of Local 5 while she worked a second job as a cocktail waitress at the Sheraton Waikiki’s former Esprit Lounge and pool bar after college to help pay off student loans.

“This is a union that recognizes the dignity of our workers and the ability for people to work a hard day’s work and be able to support and take care of their families as well,” Tokuda said. “I wanted to make sure I was here to stand by my fellow union members to make sure that they knew that they had support from all levels of government. Let’s hope we don’t get to the strike line, but if we do, we are right there with them.”

Tokuda also expressed concern about a possible United strike.

“I absolutely respect our flight attendants and our pilots and their ability to be able to fairly negotiate and get what they need for their members,” she said.

Tokuda said she wonders whether the combined threat of a hotel strike and airline strike is “a product of COVID, and some of the labor practices that we saw come out of it that at the end of the day were unfair to workers.”

She added that the pandemic also “heightened awareness amongst workers about what is important to me and to my family. I do think it is a convergence of storms.”