The debate over the drafting of the Constitution at the Philadelphia Convention was a lengthy and troublesome process, lasting nearly four months. (Mead 41) The chore afterwards though, of having ‘the people’ ratify the proposal, was an even more lengthy and troublesome process and involved many more people than the secretive Philadelphia Convention. (Mead 45, 119) The day after the proposed Constitution had been signed behind closed doors it was published in full by the Pennsylvania Packer, a Philadelphia newspaper, along with the letter to the Congress and ratification procedures. (Maier 26) Over the next two weeks papers across the land followed suit and the nation debated the proposal. (Mead 116)

The ratification process for the Constitution was specifically laid out by the drafters, calling for the people of each individual state to vote for special delegates to state ratifying conventions, where the delegates would then vote whether to approve the proposed document. (Amar 5, Maier ix) Notably, the process did not seek the consent of Congress, as the proposed document would dissolve the Congress under the Articles of Confederation, and seeking that Congresses approval would be illogical and self-defeating. Instead, the instructions for ratifying the proposed Constitution called directly to the people to select delegates to ratify the newly formed governing document. (Maier 30) Approval requirements were also unique, only requiring nine of the thirteen states to ratify the proposal to transform it into a binding agreement, but then only binding those states that had ratified it by that time. (Amar 6)

The criteria for voting for state delegates was surprisingly inclusive, with eight states using “less property-focused than normal” requirements, and two states allowing basically all taxpaying adult free males to vote. (Amar 7) Even so, only about five percent of the free people at the time, or around 160,000, voted for delegates to the state ratifying conventions, and probably less than 100,000 favored ratifying the proposal. (Gibson 19, Mead 119) The Convention’s secretary, Major William Jackson, took the Constitution, and the recommendation that it be passed on to the states, to the Congress in NYC. (Mead 115)On Sept. 28, without endorsing or advising approval, all 12 state delegations present in Congress voted to pass the document to the states. (Mead 116)

People debated how democratic the process was even at that time. For instance, when the Pennsylvania delegates meet at the Pennsylvania Sate Ratification Convention, the question was raised whether this proposal was truly democratic as only one-sixth of the eligible population had voted for the delegates, meaning only they had expressed an opinion, positive or negative, and it was therefore conceivable that a majority of the actual population opposed the proposal. (Maier 116) While the amount of democracy in ratifying the Constitution can be criticized, it was still groundbreaking as probably the largest act of democracy in human history up to that point in time. (Amar 10)

There were other criticisms about the proposed Constitution, and the ratification process, which are debated to this day. In a time without television or Twitter the debate, and the anxiety and the excitement, in taverns and coffeehouses, as well as in the pages of newspapers and across dinner tables, exceeded what today might rival the Super Bowl or the World Series. (Maier ix-xi, Mead 117) Debates and protests raged in towns across the land, including a 'fracas' in Albany where about 40 anti-Federalists burned a copy of the Constitution in protest, a perfectly patriotic thing for them to do at the time, being states rights advocates opposed to adopting the proposed document.

To simplify and organize the debates over ratification today our thoughts are often divided into Federalist and anti-Federalist points of view, with the Federalists often representing the wealthy and well educated, the intelligent and articulate, while those who opposed ratification are usually categorized as dirt farmers, yeoman, and the poorly educated. (Mead 117 – 118, Maier xiv) It would be better to realize that the critics of the Constitution had many varied reasons, some of them worthy of noting even today. Those opposed to the Constitution were sometimes generally opposed to central government, or were state employees worried about losing their livelihood, or patriots to their sovereign state, or opposed “for some other personal reason, not from a commitment to the public good.” (Maier xiv)

At the time, Richard Henry Lee, a Congressman from Virginia, said that the proposed Constitution was “highly and dangerously oligarchic” and that “a monarchy or an aristocracy will be generated.” (Stephens 76) George Mason, a neighbor of Washington’s but an irregular servant to the people of Virginia, serving sometimes and refusing at other times, at first supported a strong central government when he accepted serving as a Virginia delegate. (Maier 39) Mason strongly supported state democracy and, in this researcher’s opinion, was probably a Virginia patriot above all else.

Mason served on committees and was very active in the debates at the unusual and secret Philadelphia Convention. (Maier 40 – 42) Mason was a man concerned with details, and a man of morals, contributing the phrase “high crimes and misdemeanors” to the clause on impeachment and openly condemning slavery. (Maier 44) He called slavery a “national sin” and predicated it would result in a “national tragedy.” (Maier 43) By the end of the Convention Mason had created and submitted a list of objections and had become what may be termed an anti-Federalist, fearing the Senate was “aristocratic.” Mason refused to sign the proposed Constitution, and on August 31 he said, "I would sooner chop off my right hand than put it to the Constitution as it now stands," and he left, in what Madison phrased “exceedingly ill humor.” (Maier 39, 43)

There are multiple books and studies concerning Charles Beard’s 1913 publication, An Economic Interpretation of the US Constitution, sometimes called “One of the most provocative, persistently controversial, and influential academic books ever written.” (Gibson 4) Meanwhile, other books, biographies of the Constitution, dismiss Beard with a single sentence as irrelevant. (Amar 38) Beard argued that the main struggles concerning ratification were between holders of two types of assets, “personality,” (bonds and securities,) and “realty,” (debtors and small farmers holding little land.) (Gibson 4) It is pointed out that even Beard’s most vehement critic, who wrote that “an economic interpretation of the Constitution does not work,” ironically reinforces an economic interpretation when he states that the framers were “driven by base motives, especially greed.” (Gibson 30)

Thoroughly investigating that debate among scholars is beyond the scope of this paper, but a few items regarding the ratification must be pointed out. The foremost point would be that “research establishes the aristocratic character of the Federalist leadership.” (Gibson 41) Additionally, “even though American society consisted largely of modest farmers, only two delegates could be so classified,” and that no ‘radicals,’ or radical ideas, were present at the Philadelphia Convention. (Gibson 39)

Following those points through to the Federalist/anti-Federalist debate, it has also been pointed out that the ‘winners’ write the history, that the Federalists generally owned the newspapers, and that they “forcibly blocked the circulation of literature critical of the Constitution.” (Maier xiv) Further, what can be categorized as a savvy political tactic, the Federalists labeled themselves as Federalists. Even though the Federalists were against the Articles of Confederation, they managed to cast themselves in the positive frame and forced those who favored the status quo of remaining in the Confederation as being the “anti” group. (Mead 117) “Although journalists and historians would later confer on them the title ‘anti-Federalists,’ they preferred to see themselves as true Federalists and their opponents as ‘Nationalists’ and ‘Consolidationists.’” (Mead 118)

Tying those thoughts together is George Mason, who had supported requiring a two-thirds vote for all laws regulating trade, and had opposed the slave trade. Mason charged that “South Carolina and Georgia agreed to let trade laws pass by simple majorities in return for provisions precluding the abolition of the slave trade until 1808.” (Maier 43) The economic texts cite that wealthy “merchants voted unanimously” against the two-thirds rule on trade that Mason favored, (almost certainly contributing to his ill-temper and reasons for leaving.) (Gibson 40)

As the ratification votes had moved through the state conventions it was by no means an assured outcome, and each state vote affected the next. Hamilton, a Federalist, at one point described the chances of New York ratifying the Constitution as “slender.” (Amar 37) Essays by writers published in New York and Philadelphia with pen names such as ‘Brutus,’ ‘Cato’ and ‘Centinel,’ criticized the proposed constitution, even drawing direct responses to their arguments from “Publius,” (Madison, Hamilton, and Jay) the authors of the Federalist. (Maier 82-83) While the Federalist today is viewed as scholarly, at the time the essays were actually very partisan and political, arguing for their position over their critic’s positions of not adopting the aristocratic Constitution.

While the first vote, by Delaware on December 7, 1987, was unanimous, the following vote, in Pennsylvania, has been characterized as “bitter.” (Mead 120) But each state, with arguing all along the way and some by slim margins, voted in favor. Massachusetts only ratified if they were allowed to attach a recommendation for a Bill of Rights. Every state after Massachusetts, except Maryland, also attached a recommendation for a Bill of Rights. Many also recommended other amendments. (Mead 120) Threats and intimidation were an almost a standard part of the ratification campaign throughout the states, with some newspaper publishers refusing to publish letters and essays critical of the proposed Constitution, or requiring such writers to publish their names. (Maier 72) Publishing a person’s name could prove dangerous. One Massachusetts official noted that it was “unsafe” to publicly acknowledge opposition to the Constitution, and people were even threatened with “a coat of TAR and FEATHERS” for opposing Ratification. (Maier 71)

New Hampshire was the ninth state to ratify, officially creating the new union, on June 21, 1788. (Mead 120) Rhode Island, who had sent no delegates to the Philadelphia Convention, was the last to ratify nearly two years later. Suffering under economic sanctions from the consolidated federal government, Rhode Island finally ratified on May 29, 1790, almost two years after the Philadelphia Convention. (Mead 121)

Taken all together—the viscous politics, the dirty tricks, the questionable democracy of the process, and the minimal representation of various parts of society—it could appear that the Constitution was jammed down the throats of the “modest farmers” not of “aristocratic character.” In hindsight, the ‘anti-Federalist’ fears that the Constitution would form an aristocracy may not have been unwarranted, and, in modern-day parlance, the favoritism to the wealthy and aristocratic written into the proposal, by the wealthy and aristocratic ruling class, might be called, from their point of view, ‘A feature, not a bug.’

The Constitution: Old Bullshit?

--Works Cited

Amar, Akhil Reed. America's Constitution: A Biography. New York: Random House, 2005. Print.

Gibson, Alan Ray. Understanding the Founding: The Crucial Questions. Lawrence, Kan.: U of Kansas, 2007. Print.

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

Mead, Walter B. The United States Constitution: Personalities, Principles, and Issues. Columbia, SC: U of South Carolina, 1987. Print.

Stephens, George M. Locke, Jefferson, and the Justices: Foundations and Failures of the US Government. New York: Algora Pub., 2002. Print.