Re-read pages 246 to 252 in your textbook and answer the following questions by Wednesday's class. When you are done answering the questions, post two comments that simply offer some sort of commentary on the ratification process. One comment must be in response to another students' comment.
1. Agree/disagree: the Anti-Federalist's concerns over the lack of a Bill of Rights was legitimate.
2. What conclusions can be drawn from the chart on p. 250 and the map on p. 251 in regards to how economics and geography affected the ratification process?
3. Why would geography be key in whether or not a state ratified the Constitution?
4. Argue for or against: Ratification would have been made easier if the Constitutional Convention met without such a shroud of secrecy.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
47 comments:
heey :) so i guess I'm the first one for once to leave a comment. The entire ratification process was extremely long, and was not an easy road for the delegates when trying to get the constitution to pass and become the law. Yet, if it had not been such a tedious task and could have been passed easier then getting 3/4 of all the states to ratify it, major issues and concerns might not have been addressed and the the Great Compromise might not have even taken place. When you think about it, if ratifying the constitution had been so easy, then the major issue of representation in government might not have even been addressed as much at the convention, and we would be living with an unfair system of government. Just an interesting fact. Sometimes things that are annoying and tedious really make all the difference.
I think it was pretty smart of the delegates from the Philadelphia Convention to make it necessary for only nine out of the thirteen states to ratify the Constitution for it to become the official law of the United States. It would be impractical and nearly impossible to obtain unanimous approval from all the states, at least any time soon. They should have learned this from the example that Congress under the Articles of Confederation set; Congress could never get the unanimous approval from the states it needed to take any action. After the Constitution was implemented as the law of the land, by having the remaining states that did not ratify the Constitution not be part of the country until they ratify it gives a kind of "peer pressure." I think any state would rather group together into a large country rather than stand alone next to a large country.
When I was re-reading page 247 from the book, I came across an interesting sentence: "Politics...had to provide for peaceful compromise among conflicting groups."
Do you believe that today's politics provided for "peaceful compromise of conflicting groups?"
(That sentence is more related to our previous blog discussion regarding factions- here is my post on Ratification.)
In the "Struggle over Ratification" section, the fact that the majority of the people probably opposed or didn't care about the approval of the Constitution caught my eye. I found it kind of repulsive that the people who were living in these states were indifferent to the Constitution, the document that is the foundation and basis of the national government!
Also, for those who opposed the Constitution, I was distraught on the fact that the Federalists, the ones who were advocating the Constitution did not bother to gain support of the people because "they did not have to persuade most of Americans but needed only to secure majorities in nine of the state ratifying conventions, as much less formidable task.” (This ties into our in class writing assignment)
I believe that they should put up an effort to try to gain support from the people because the handling of this document should be meticulously done because there is no room for errors.
In response to Chelsea's comment:
I agree that the Constitution's ratification was inevitably difficult. I think the whole point of the Convention was to address the major issues since everyone agreed that the government and country under the Articles of Confederation was not doing too well. However, I think the Constitution was controversial because the proposed government was so different from the government under the Articles. The people feared the changes that the Constitution would bring. I don't know for sure, but I doubt the Constitution would have been nearly as controversial at the time if it was just a revision of the Articles of Confederation.
Alexa's quote- "I think the whole point of the Convention was to address the major issues since everyone agreed that the government and country under the Articles of Confederation was not doing too well."
In response, no I do not think that everyone agreed that the country was "not doing too well". There was a purpose that the Convention was held in secret! Some people disagreed with the Constitution and agreed with the Articles of Confederation...(Anti-Federalists?) The Federalists did not want to cause a riot.
I do agree with Alexa on her statement, "people feared change". I feel that this is exactly correct because many people thought this was anarchy since they were overthrowing the Articles of Confederation (overthrowing the standing government).
I don't agree with Chelsea about the tediousness of ratification. They made it 9 out of 13 states to ratify the Constitution as opposed to 13 out of 13 because they thought that would be too hard to achieve. They actually made it easier for the document to be passed, but I understand you're point of view, and I agree that if the process was any faster, the decisions made would be rash and not fully thought out.
From outside research, I discovered that actually in Article VII of the Constitution, it stated, "the ratification of the conventions of nine states, shall be sufficient for the establishment of this constitution between the states so ratifying the same".
I thought this was slightly ironic how they were voting on ratifying the constitution, when they were already following one of the articles in the constitution.
Also, I was pretty surprised that all these states ratified the Constitution within a space of about 11 months. That's pretty fast for so many different state legislatures to argue, debate, compromise, and adopt it. I think that (especially in Rhode Island) many people who were originally against the Constitution, gave up once Washington had been inaugurated, but they still had enough time to express their true feelings about some issues that needed to be addressed within the constitution, (what Chelsea said), thus the addition of the Bill of Rights.
What do you think?
As we have all been saying, the ratification process of the Constitution was a tedious and intense process. Thankfully though, like the other students have said, only 9 out of the 13 states needed to ratify the document. Thirteen out of thirteen states seems utterly impossible because of the debating Anti-Federalists and Federalists. Through my research of Virginia's Ratification of the Constitution I could tell how difficult it was for one side to gain support of delegates who stood on the fence over the matter. Federalists and Anti-Federalists had heated debates for quite a long time and both provided sufficient points to prove their case. The Federalists were able to win approval though of their document and the other 8 states did the same. The conventions lasted an even longer time in other states that had were important and had a large influence over the rest of the nation, for example New York. Three fourths of the states approval was all that was needed and even that number was hard to reach.
In response to Amy's comment, the process of ratification was very tedious and painstaking but considering that it only took about a year or so to ratify was a feat in itself. Compared to passing a law in the United States now, this was only a small amount of time. There are many steps that a law needs to pass through before it may be ratified. From one of our previous discussions in class, we also said how the Congress takes a break during the year, and therefore the ratification of a law has another delay to face. This doesn't even include whether or not the president will veto the bill. Considering that the delegates of the conventions had to pass a document that set up the basis of our entire government system was a huge deal and needed to be picked apart detail by detail to secure the future of the nation. Without these little revisions that the states proposed the Constitution would not represent every state's needs and opinions.
Personally, I found the role of geography and demographics in ratification to be most interesting.
As illustrated by the map on page 251, federalist strength was concentrated along costal regions and navigable rivers, and cities and towns.
This corresponds to the federalist support from economic groups such as merchants and businessmen.
Hence, ratification of the constitution would have been easiest states containing industrialized costal towns. i.e. New Jersey.
I agree with Alicja's comment that "the process of ratification was very tedious and painstaking but considering that it only took about a year or so to ratify was a feat in itself."
The ratification for the constitution was often power played through state constitutional conventions. Federalists blitzed the voting process in conventions where there was much support for the document and impeded the voting process in conventions that did not support the constitution.
For example, in New Hampshire the conventional was adjourned when the Federalists realized they needed more votes, and then reconvened later once enough votes were amassed by the federalists.
So I just want you all to know that I wrote this good, long blog. And RIGHT BEFORE I submitted it, my computer crashed. So now I am rewriting this with anger :)
Okay so this might seem a little harsh- but I think the victory of the Federalists was a bit unfair. This whole ratification process seemed like a game to me. The Federalists had a goal to make the Anti-Federalist and undecided states Federalist. They worked really hard to do this, especially by political maneuvering, as is stated more than once by the book. The Federalist essays were created to promote ratification. States were also swayed by the Federalists view because the thought that the Articles of Confederation was inadequate was widespread. This is all fair. However, let's ponder this...who got to decide that only 9 out of 13 states would have to agree for the Constitution to be ratified? The Federalists! Yes, their skill helped them succeed by getting the majority of the country on their side, but the majority of the Revolution's major leaders were also Federalists. The Federalists also played dirty. They made up rumors to sway the Anti-Federalists such as that Anti-Federalist Patrick Henry had switched sides. So while I think it's great that the Federalists prevailed, because the ratification of the Constitution has shaped our country today, I think it was a bit unjust.
- Stefanie
I agree with Alex in that I also found the role of geography and demographics in ratification to be most interesting to read. It makes a lot of sense to me that most Federalists resided in the coastal regions, cities, and towns. The people that lived there were artisans, shopkeepers, and urban laborers. It makes sense to me that they would support the Constitution because they were concerned with their posterity and thought that a stronger government would promote foreign trade and protect the artisans from competition.
On the other hand, Anti-Federalists were concentrated more in the interior because most people living there were older farmers. They lived outside the market economy and felt loyalty to the republicanism of 1776. They also found the prospect of "an expanding 'American empire' alarming." They did not worry about trade and were not wealthy enough to serve in the government, so the Constitution did not strongly appeal to them.
Wealthy landowners took different sides of the issue of Federalists vs. Anti-Federalists. Many were Anti-Federalists because they had slaves they did not want them taken away. In addition, the new government threatened their own state-based political power. Other wealthy landowners still had the chance to serve in the government and believed that a strong central government would do well.
I believe this above analysis proves the selfishness of human nature. People want different things for their own good, many times not even trying to see other perspective on issues if it does not better them.
-Stefanie
It is apparrent that in writing the Constitution the Congress learned lessons from the failiures of the Articles of Confederation. Had the old system requiring a unanimous vote for ratification been in place the Constitution would still be in the process of revision today. This is assuming that the country would even be able to survive for this long. Although in the end all states ratified the Constitution it took one state, Rhode Island, over 2 years to ratify it. Even so it only passed by two votes. Odds are there were some undecided voters in the committees who watched the results of the ratification quite closely. These voters were almost certainly influenced by the fact that the Constitution was to be passsed with or without their state. In turn some probably voted yes just to make sure they were attached to history in a positive way. I mean does anyone really want to be known as "that guy who kept Rhode Island from becoming a state"?
Prior to this assignment, I had never considered the effect and role that geography played in the ratification process of the Constitution. Before ever reading the book, I would have guessed that most of the Anti-Federalists would be on the interior of the States, and most of the Federalists would be along the coast. This was for the most part true. Southern planters and farmers felt that republicanism could not be upheld with a strong central government. The Southerners felt that the core idea of republicanism could only flourish in smaller societies where states held a large majority of political power. The states along the coast, however, needed a strong national government in order for international trade to flourish.
Interestingly enough, I found that this parallels directly into modern politics. Is it not that many of the "republican" beliefs are held in the midwest and southern states, while most of the "liberal" views are held on the coastal states?
In response to what Alex said:
I agree that the map on p 251 shows that the people who were for ratification were most likely merchants and traders while those who were against it were most likely not. I believe that the reason for this is that a unified nation would produce more interstate trade. This would happen because of the decreased regulations regarding such trade.
The entire ratitication process was as many people commented, a long and tedious process. However, I feel it was smart for the process to be lengthy and hard to ratify it. Once a state ratifies the Constitution, they are obligated to obey the laws provided in it. A lengthy process would ensure that only the states that primarily agreed with the Articles went forth with becoming a "state." I can understand that the Federalists wanted to have only nine states ratify it to become official, rather than all thirteen because that would be inevitable. It is worth noting that disagreements among the anti-Federalists created mroe problems for their cause, and could be cited as a reason for a defeat against the Federalists. In terms of the geography of ratification, the newspaper project shone light upon the fact that states like Virginia were bitterly divided between Federalist and anti-Federalist and the table on page 250 supports this idea. I think the strictness and difficulty of the process was beneficial to the success of the nation following ratification.
Stefanie, I found your comment really intriguing. I find it very hard to believe how the Federalists managed to turn the tide and win this little "game" of ratification. It seems to me that the original idea of republicanism in 1776 coincides more with the Anti-Federalist way of thinking than with the Federalist way. After all, a strong central government is precisely what the colonists were originally aiming to veer away from when first breaking from Great Britain.
It says in the book that the perception of inadequacy of the Articles of Confederation was the platform upon which the Federalists pled their case. They claimed that "republican independence was doomed unless decisive action was taken." I really just don't understand how the avid Anti-Federalists fell for this argument.
to reiterate, the lengthy process of ratifictaion was in the end beneficial. Only those states truly commited would be granted the title of "state." and not until Rhode Island and the like accepted the Constitution for what it was would they be admitted into the union. However, if the process had taken too long, as in a uninimous vote being necessary, the country may very well have collapsed without the proper guidance, leadership, or unity. The nation could have easily have fallen victim to factional dissent and divided if not completely dissolve. In the end, the ratifiction was a balancing act- cautiously moving foward so as not to lay a bad foundation, or move into things that no one wanted, and pressing onward to avoid collapse.
to respond to Evan, and to build off my previous post, the length of the ratification process did benefit the constitution. The process ensured commitment from each ratifier, however, did not enforce a strict code on each state-willing or unwilling. Each state could accept the document at its own pace. The divide between federalists and antifederalists also allowed for many different opinions being voiced, and flaws to be noticed. Neither group could simply press foward with their own agendas in mind.
The graphs showing the geography of Federalist and Anti-federalist presence showed me another dimension of complexity ratification had that I had not previously thought about. Not only were there differences in the passionate personal opinions delegates held but also in the various region's best political and economic interests. I now see the magnitude of the issue at hand of attempting to represent all regions fairly because of the great amount of dissension. It's amazing that our founding fathers were able to come to a compromise in order to obtain 3/4 of the states consent. It's even more amazing that ratification was done in only a year! The fact that ratification was in fact achieved despite the differences in opinion, was a strong indicator of our nations later success.
Also, I found it interesting that the New England states of New Hampshire and Massachusetts were not overwhelmingly liberal, as they vote nowadays.
In response to Stefanie's comment about the "game," I was also getting that impression. After the preliminary Constitutional debates, the focus changed to which side could outdo the other. Obviously, the Federalists were victorious on the majority of issues, with them throwing the Bill of Rights in to satsify the anti-Federalists. Although more of a supporter of the anti-Federalist viewpoint, I can understand that the Federalists had the right goals for a long term, stable government. My only question is why did it take Rhode Island so long to ratify the Constitution? Everyone has pointed out the fact that Federalists were predominantly located along the coast with lots of trade and navigable rivers, all of which Rhode Island contained.
I think Casy's comment is really interesting because it points out a key factor that led to our nation's success in ratification. Connecting to my previous comment, each state has different needs, interests, and opinions. Each person has different needs, interests, and opinions. It's nearly impossible to create a unanimous consensus on a system of government while maintaining that the leadership of the country itself is not left undetermined for too long leading to instability in the country. This is why it was so important for each state to come into acceptance of the Constitution in its own time and not force any unwanted changes that could lead to war.
I am glad that the ratification process was not an easy one, and that there was a lot of debate among the Federalists and Anti-Federalists. With the debates came a chance for the people to examine the Constitution for flaws, and see if the Constitution was good enough to put into practice. If each state simply let the Constitution pass without much debate, that would show that they do not care very much about the government of our country. They would put just about anything into practice. The fact that each state took the time to fine-tune the Constitution, with their criticism and the Bill of Rights, but still managed to pass the Constitution, shows how perfect, or near perfect the Constitution really is, since it managed to please nine out of the thirteen states -- the majority.
I agree the fact that the ratification process shouldn't have been easy. The fact that the delegates had such different opinions forced them to come up with the best system of government, and the difficulty of ratifying the constitution ensured that the states thought about what they would be creating prior to ratifying the Constitution. It can be compared to how Congress is now with passing bills, it prevented them from make a rash decision that had the possibility of being harmful to their individual state and the entire country.
I agree the fact that the ratification process shouldn't have been easy. The fact that the delegates had such different opinions forced them to come up with the best system of government, and the difficulty of ratifying the constitution ensured that the states thought about what they would be creating prior to ratifying the Constitution. It can be compared to how Congress is now with passing bills, it prevented them from make a rash decision that had the possibility of being harmful to their individual state and the entire country.
In response to Alexa's comment:
Yes, only having nine out of thirteen states approve the Constitution was a smart idea. Although getting everyone to approve of the Constitution would have been time-consuming and unlikely, unlike the Articles of Confederation, the Constitution's goal was not to get people to approve it -- they just needed the people's signatures.
Towards the end of your post you wrote about peer pressure. I thought that the peer pressure was a good strategy for ratification, especially for the states who didn't sign. Those states probably realized that they did not have many better options if they did not ratify, since they could not really do much on their own compared with the combined total of the other states. But at the same time, the states who signed the Constitution because of the peer pressure, were probably not very pleased with the Constitution itself. They just figured that if they didn't sign that document, they would be bullied by the states that did.
This shows how the Constitution did not need everyone's approval, they just wanted people to agree with it, unlike the Articles which made sure that everyone was in accordance with it, because it posed no threat to the states that said "no" to its principles.
As the map on page 251 depicts, cities and major areas of trade largely influenced how their states voted. Obviously states with more cities and urbanized centers would have an easier time passing the Constitution because most of the population lives in the area. More importantly, however, is their influence. As proven by the Federalist Papers influence is a key component to the ratification process. Overall however, I was a little surprised to see just how much land was politically unorganized. Of course some disorganization is to be expected but all that pink? To me this reaffirms what the book says that the most important task was not convincing the public what to think, even though their opinions would be heard.
As i read Stef's comment i was glad to hear I wasn't the only person who caught that the Federalists decided how many votes were needed to ratify the Constitution. In theory who was to stop them from saying 7 out of 13 or even 5 out of 13? In fairness though, a margin greater than 75% is still truly difficult to reach.
Overall, I felt as though the Federalists did play the 'game' fair. Yes some things may seems overboard but in the heat of battle any tactic that leads to victory is acceptable. When A-Rod yelled during a pop up in Toronto, many believed his action was Bush League, but in the end there was nothing anyone could do and the play stood. That relates to this situation because, yes, there was a large amount of convincing to be done. But if these people truly believe in their cause to pass the Constitution, just as A-Rod has a strong will for victory, how can you fault them for using any means necessary. And not to sound like a total cheese ball, the end justifies the means.
I think it is pretty clear that the Constitution's ratification was not an easy process and the Federalists of the time understood this. The amount of propaganda and campaigning used by the Federalists to secure the majority vote with in states, discussed on page 250 in our textbooks, was surprising but it should'nt have been. There was strong opposition in many states and even attempting to get nine of the thirteen proved to be a challenging goal. Even though the Constitution was ratified within a year it was not accepted before the promising of a Bill of Rights in order to sway some anti-federalists. This makes me wonder whether the Constitution was even close to what the majority of United States' citizens really wanted or whether its ratification was more due to the Federalists' campaigning.
I agree with Joanna's comment. Since there were many different opinions surrounding the Constitution's creation, it was placed under an extremely critical examination by all its creator's. They were attempting to make a document that held the middle ground surrounding many opposing issues. This way, the Constitution could create a more powerful federal government, and nation, while allowing different opinions from the government's leaders. This relates to its ratification because while it was proposing a strong central government, which went against the anti-federalist's beliefs, it provided an only an outline of the government with room for interpretation which we've talked about alot. In this sense it would not just appeal to one specific group of people, which explains how the Federalists were able to gain such support over people who were undecided about the Constitution.
John, that's a really interesting point. After re-reading the chapter i was wondering the same question as to whether the constitution was really what everyone wanted or just what the federalists wanted, and about Alicja's whole conspiracy theory, however, nine out of the thirteen states had to approve this document... meaning that the majority of people had to agree with it too. I agree that the use of propganda was extremely high, but I think that there would have been major uprisnings if the people didnt truly agree with the document before ratifying into the union. They had just fought Great Britian, and no doubt everyone on the American soil had, had a war experience and literaly were dying to create this new free nation, if so many people felt slighted and didnt agree with the new system of government being put in place, major uprisings would have definitly occured.. no doubt the constitution was definitly helped along by the federalists point of view.. the people would have had to agree with it and then it would have really been what the people wanted.
i agree with what you said chelsea, i believe that for a new system of government to work, the people would have had to want it as well. I know that a lot of the delegates agreed that the system of governing had to be changed in order to account for the changing times and ideas. They saw a nation that was not working together and was lacking unity and decided that a new government could help to solve that problem. I think that if the people felt the same way the convention would not have had to be held in secret. The people had to be convinced after the Constitution was written that it was a good idea and could be effective in helping the country get to a better place.
As I worked on question 4 I realized that the Constitutional Convention had to be held in secret. If not, it would have been considered treason to the current government and everybody involved would have been indisputably hanged! Obviously, ratification would have been impossible. I also thought it was very interesting that the Federalists chose nine out of thirteen states rather than seven states. Seven would make an exact majority, but nine only made it harder for them to get it ratified. In the comments, a lot of people said "only nine out of thirteen," but it makes sense - Not too few, not too many.
Amy and Katie also mentioned the convention having to be held in secret. I agree with both of them because if the Convention wasn't held in secret (and assuming the delegates weren't hanged) they would have faced major opposition.
What Chris Kinney brought up also shocked me. I didn't expect so much territory to be "Politically Unorganized." I was expected northeastern areas to be Federalist and Southern areas to be Antifederalist but it was a lot more mixed.
I think that the Ratification process was meant to be as easy as possible. The delegates at the convention most likely anticipated the dissension that was to result out of the ratification process between the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists. In order to convince the Anti-Federalists to change their vote, they promised a Bill of Rights to follow. I think that the promise of the Bill of Rights is the only thing that really convinced some of the Anti-Federalists to change their vote to decide to ratify the Constitution. If not for this reason, I don't think the Constitution would have been radified.
Dharik brought up a good point about how many states were required in order to ratify the Constitution. The delegates of the Constitutional Convention could have chosen seven out of the nine states to ratify and it would have been just as even as nine of the thirteen states. Why didn't they choose six or seven to make it even? Why not choose eight? Contradicting to what I said in my previous blog, the delegates were making the Constitution harder to ratify than easier in this respect. They may have tried for a majority to assure that the Constitution was ratified fairly and not just because half of the states ratified it.
Sorry for the late input, but here goes...
Upon reading the "Struggle for Ratification" section, I found in surprising how deviously the Federalists worked to get the Constitution in full swing in only a year. At one point the book states that Madison "promised" that the Congress would "consider" a Bill of Rights once the document got ratified. According to the book,the "consideration" (not guarantee) secured the vote of many strong Anti-Federalists. This surprised me since after their entire fight, some Anti-Federalists were able to change their minds so quickly after a promise for a "consideration".
To me, this seemed almost like the many Anti-Federalist were losing faith in their fight. I feel that earlier on in the ratification process, this proposition of consideration of a bill of rights wouldn't have ever pulled people in to vote for the ratification of the Constitution. This almost proves that there was a toll on some citizens that the long and painful, for some, process took on them.
(I know this was a while back...) In response to Amy's question, "Do you believe that today's politics provides for 'peaceful compromise of conflicting groups?'", I would say that the national government does seem to have such a role. For example, in our discussions about factions earlier in the year, we talked about how the different states and areas of the country could be looked at as factions. The only tie between the states and these factions is the national government, whose direction and restrictiveness should relieve the tension between the states.
Also in governments within a state, factions are taken under control that are creating strife between and among groups of people.
Generally, I do believe today's government provides for compromise between restricting groups since its job is to control and run a country, much of whose problems involves conflicting ideas.
I think one of the most important things to note about the ratification process as a whole is that ratification of the Constitution was not a definite event. There were a myriad of possibilities that could have deterred the Constitution from being ratified. The Congress set up by the Articles of Confederation might have rejected the Constitution, rewritten it, or referred it to a second general convention.(They could have legitimate claim that the first Constitutional Convention had went beyond its boundaries by completely trashing the Articles.) The states might have rejected the Constitution for the same reason. They could have also accused of the Constitutional Convention of being conducted in secret, and thus not valid. Finally, rejection by the legislatures of any or all of four key states, Massachusetts, New York, Pennsylvania, and Virginia, could have destroyed the Constitution, even if the necessary nine states did approve it. These possibilities dominated American politics at the time of ratification. It was a rather stressful situation.
IN response to Rebecca’s response about the majority needed for ratification, I believe that they needed to make the constitution accepted in an “official” way. This was a completely new form of government and there were a lot of opponents to this new plan. SO, in attempt to give some argument for their case, they needed to have a majority agree with them. This would allow them to have at lease a strong support group. One cannot begin a new government without such support.
in response to marianne's comment about amy's, I do not believe that our government today is doing its job to resolve conflicts between different factions. First of all, there are two major political faction or parties, the Democratic and Republicans and there are no real ways to solve an issue. It is not fair that the two parties dominate most of what occurs in the country and many people are corrupted due to their preference towards a group. I do agree, however, with Marianne that the government has a part to play in these conflicts
I agree with Rebecca's comment about having 9 out of 13 rather than 7 out of thirteen. If it were in fact 7 out of 13 states to ratify the Constitution, that would be leaving out six states. It was said that those that did not ratify the Constitution was not part of the new union so that would have probably lead to more issues. She makes a valid point when saying that it was 9 out of 13 states so that it was not just a little more than half, it was that almost all countries wanted it. To be honest, making it 9 out of 13 was already quite difficult for them to win. Colonies like North Carolina wanted to stick with the Articles of Confederation but seeing so many other colonies ratify the Constitution made them do so as well. However, since there has been so few amendments the system obviously works.
so i appologize for this response being late and i doubt anyone besides kyle or ryan will bother to respond to my comment, but i have a different idea that hasn't been discussed already.
the ratification process was supposed to be difficult. it was meant to be tedious. it needed to be a challenge.
would the adoption of such an influential document be a big deal if it took a week to be approved? definitely not. the way it all worked out, debates and varying opinions, is what makes the Constitution more legitimate. by going through so much scrutiny, it earned it's rightful place as the doctrine of a nation.
had ratification been a simple process, the Constitution would not have had as much buzz and people wouldn't have really cared what it said. i think that all the scrutiny and the whole ordeal each state went through while deciding whether or not to accept it was absolutely necessary.
and in response to Stef's comment about the Federalists making a game out of how many states they could win over, i think it's kind of brilliant. the federalists knew what they had to do in order to convince 9/14 of the states to adopt the document they supported. by writing the Federalist Papers, Madison, Hamilton, and Jay were able to counter-act the anti-Federalist sentiment and this proved to be a successful strategy.
like any game, the most skillful players were victorious. and to me, politics has always been a type of game. it's been that way since the 1780's and even earlier.
Heyyy guys. Sorry I am so incredibly late in commenting, I got sick and then I forgot about this assignment. OOPS.
When I read this section in the text it made me think about what the motivations of the different states were. Smaller, Anti-Federalist states (like Rhode Island...) didn't actually have any sway at all, despite the win ratio of 9/13. 9 is just a number. If 5 random little states on the outskirts of the important areas (the areas around New York and Virginia, namely) voted against ratification, making the vote 8/13, there's no way that ratification wouldn't get passed anyway. The small, insignificant states couldn't survive on their own so they would have to ratify eventually. On the other hand, New York and Virginia had complete power over the entire process. If only they decided not to ratify, the Constitution wouldn't be ratified because those two states were so vital to the survival of an American nation.
Kind of makes you wonder how much of a power play democracy actually is.
I have something to say about Will's comment, about how no one wanted to go down in history as the guy who stopped Rhode Island from becoming a state, that's not really an agreement or disagreement. After the first nine states had ratified, the reasons for the remaining five states for whether or not to ratify were altered. Instead of making a decision about adopting a new set of rules for their country, they had to make a more difficult decision on secession. So when we look at the chart showing Rhode Island ratifying with only a two vote margin, we should remember that they weren't just making a decision about the future of their country, they were making a more personal decision on their own future as a state. Their narrow decision for ratification only reflects the dicey-ness of the choice they made. Obviously, a good amount of Rhode Islanders thought secession was not such a bad idea. Not to play devil's advocate (because we all know that none of us actually like Rhode Island for its frustrating political choices in early America), but they did consistently get the short end of the stick and it is understandable why many of them would seriously consider seceding.
Post a Comment