the states in the North were technically free of slavery, before the U.S. Civil War the Fugitive Slave Clause allowed slave owners from the South to retrieve their “property” if the excapee fled north (Library of Congress).
What was the Fugitive Slave Clause?
The Fugitive Slave Clause in Article IV, Section 2 provided that masters could recover their fugitive slaves as property.
After the Constitution was signed, what happened during the ratification process?
Article VII of the Constitution provides: “The ratification of the conventions of nine states shall be sufficient for the establishment of the Constitution between the states so ratifying the same.” This meant that the “real fight” did not come on the convention floor. It came in the states over whether to ratify the Constitution. Many merchants, manufacturers, and big plantation owners in the South favored the Constitution. They knew the new Constitution would help protect their business interests.
But, many small farmers did not want to sacrifice their individual freedom and become dependent on the business people. The battle over ratification became a great issue of the day. It captured the headlines and great space in the newspapers. Pamphlets were printed on each side. Congress directed the state legislatures to call ratification conventions to vote on the new document. Under the ratification process, the state legislatures would vote to call special conventions. Delegates, often the state legislators themselves, would vote at the conventions.
The ratification process was not easy. Political leaders were divided. Supporters of the new Constitution with its strong central government called themselves Federal ists. Opponents of the Constitution were called Anti-Federalists. Many of them opposed the Constitution because it failed to provide for a bill of rights and gave too much power to the federal government at the expense of the state governments.
What were the principal objections of the Anti-Federalists to the Constitution?
The Anti-Federalists were particularly concerned with the so-called “necessary and proper” clause of the new Constitution. Article I, Section 8 provided Congress with the power to “make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper” for executing its powers vested in the Constitution. Other Anti-Federalists were concerned with the supremacy clause in Article I. Many Anti-Federalists viewed this clause as wiping out the powers of state governments.
Many Anti-Federalists also argued that the Constitution gave too much power to the president. Some feared that the president and the Senate would unite to become similar to the King of England and the upper house of the English Parliament, the House of Lords. The King of England and the House of Lords represented aristocrats, the upper class of society, and tended to ignore the interests of regular people.
What were the Federalist Papers and what was their importance?
The Federalist Papers were a series of essays that galvanized much popular support for the Constitution during the ratification struggle. In the most populous states of New York and Virginia the Anti-Federalists fought hard. After the Philadelphia Convention, James Madison co-wrote a series of articles with Alexander Hamilton and John Jay that became known as The Federalist Papers. These 85 essays written under the pen name Publius are still considered the definitive work on the Constitution. Thomas Jefferson once called them “the best commentary on the principles of government which ever was written.”
These articles discussed the framework of the Constitution, including the principles of checks and balances and separation of powers among three branches of government. Hamilton, Jay, and Madison sought to persuade the readers that the newly designed government was the best course of action for the young country. Hamilton wrote that the nation faced a “crisis.” He wrote that if the country voted against the new Constitution, that decision would “deserve to be considered as the general misfortune of mankind.”
In Federalist 45 Madison argued that the state governments did not have much to fear from the federal government. Madison wrote: “The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite.”
Did the Anti-Federalists have their own published writings?
Yes, the Anti-Federalists also relied on a series of anonymous essays. Several Anti-Federalists also wrote articles under pen names attacking various aspects of the Constitution. An Anti-Federalist who called himself the “Federal Farmer” critiqued the Constitution in a series of letters published in the Poughkeepsie Country Journal from November 1787 to January 1788. The letters also appeared in pamphlet form. For many years, it was assumed that Richard Henry Lee of Virginia was the author. Now, some historians believe the author was the New York Anti-Federalist Melancton Smith.
The “Letters from the Federal Farmer” criticized the new Constitution and its proponents as showing a “strong tendency to aristocracy.” The Federal Farmer argued that the Constitution concentrated too much power in the central government. The Federal Farmer also made some accurate predictions about the future of our government. For example, the Federal Farmer wrote: “This system promises a large field of employment to military gentlemen and gentlemen of the law.”
Robert Yates, a New York judge who served in the Convention, wrote a series of articles under the pen name “Brutus.” Brutus was the Roman republican who helped assassinate Julius Caesar to prevent Caesar from overthrowing the Roman Republic. In one of his articles he criticized the powers granted to the judicial branch. He wrote that “the supreme court under this constitution would be exalted above all other power in the government, and subject to no control.”
How did the battle between the Federalists and Anti-Federalists conclude?
The battle between the Federalists and Anti-Federalists was intense. However, the Federalists possessed advantages. They enjoyed most of the media support. The large newspapers from Boston, New York and Philadelphia took up the Federalist cause. They also seemed to have the best ammunition—the detailed document known as the Constitution. Though the Anti-Federalists made many arguments against provisions of the Constitution, they did not have their own document. The Anti-Federalists could only criticize the new document.
However, the Anti-Federalists seized upon the lack of a bill of rights as a prime weapon in the ratification battles. Delaware became the first state to ratify the Constitution and it did so unanimously on December 7, 1787. Then, an intense battle began in Pennsylvania. James Wilson took the lead in defending the Constitution in his home state.
In a well-known address delivered on October 6, 1787, Wilson argued that the inclusion of a bill of rights was “superfluous and absurd.” The new Congress, Wilson argued, “possesses no influence whatever upon the press.” Wilson pointed out that many Anti-Federalists were criticizing the new document because it provided for a standing army. Wilson responded: “Yet I do not know a nation in the world, which has not found it necessary and useful to maintain the appearance of strength in a season of the most profound tranquility.”
The state assembly had to vote on a state convention. Many of the Anti-Federalists in the state legislature refused to attend the assembly. They did not want the Assembly to have a quorum, or a sufficient number of members to take a valid vote. Allegedly, a mob of people broke into a local home and dragged two Anti-Federalists to the Assembly floor in order to create a quorum. The delegates voted 45 to 2 in favor
