Happy Ratification Day!

On June 21, 1788 New Hampshire became the ninth state to ratify the Constitution proposed by the Convention which had met in Philadelphia for five months the previous year.  With this action, the Constitution became effective for the United States.  Even with this milestone, there was still some uncertainty as to the size of the United States since Virginia, New York, North Carolina and Rhode Island had yet to vote on the proposed Constitution.  The first three did vote to ratify but Rhode Island did not do so until 1791 and even then only under threat from the United States.

Pauline Maier's book Ratification (2010) tells the story of the battle for ratification in the state conventions.  Along with being an entertaining read on what could have been a very dry topic, Professor Maier made me think about aspects of the process for the first time.

The book relies heavily on the Documentary History of the Ratification of the Constitution, a 23 volume work begun in 1976 which is a collection of everything (journals, newspapers, memoirs, minutes, letters) that can still be found related to the state ratification debates.

The procedural issues are fascinating - did the Continental Congress have the right to recommend a plan by a runaway Convention that subverted the existing government and the Articles of Confederation?   What action should the Congress take on it?  Who should determine whether to ratify in each of the states - the legislature or a representative convention called for that purpose?  Did the states have to vote yes or no, or could they vote for ratification with conditions?

Maier emphasizes the importance of the state conventions in expressing the "original intent" of the people.  As James Madison wrote in 1796:

" . . . whatever veneration might be entertained for the body of men who formed our constitution, the sense of that body could never be regarded as the oracular guide in . . . expounding the constitution.  As the instrument came from them, it was nothing more than the draught of a plan, nothing but a dead letter, until life and validity were breathed into it, by the voice of the people, speaking through the several state conventions.  if we were to look therefore, for the meaning of the instrument, beyond the face of the instrument, we must look for it not in the general convention, which proposed, but in the state conventions, which accepted and ratified the constitution."

This was a political battle with strategies for each state by both the federalists and their opponents.  And the tactics used employed all the wiles of good politics, with some skulduggery thrown in.

The term "anti-federalist" was a term applied by the federalists to their opposition and was not used by the opponents themselves.  In fact, while the opponents to the constitution varied in the reasons for their opposition there was almost full unanimity among them that the United States needed a stronger central government than that allowed under the Articles of Confederation - their fear was that the government proposed under the new Constitution would be too strong. 

What comes through strongly is the degree to which not just officials, but citizen delegates from communities across the states were conversant with the issues raised by the proposed Constitution and knowledgeable about the specific provisions.  This comes through most strongly in the Massachusetts debates which is one of three key states, (Virginia and New York are the others) on which Maier spends the most time.  In all three the vote in favor of ratification was very close.

Virginia was the most intriguing with Patrick Henry leading the opposition. Everyone had strong views on Henry; Thomas Jefferson called him "avaricious and rotten hearted" as well as "the greatest orator that ever lived".  The entire strategy of the Federalists in Virginia was built around how to prevent Henry from hijacking the debate at the Convention - kind of like when an opponent was playing the San Francisco Giants from 2000-2004 and their whole game plan was built around how to handle Barry Bonds (though I don't think Patrick Henry used steroids).  Henry did manage to hijack the Convention for awhile with multiple orations, including the "thunderstorm" speech, but Maier takes us through the machinations that allowed the Federalists to finally prevail.