Ratification of the Constitution

Article VII. The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same.

As has been remarked elsewhere in these pages, we Americans tend to take our Constitution for granted, and unless we know the full story, we might assume that ratification was easy, if not almost automatic. The actual process was far from easy, and ratification came perilously close to being unsuccessful. We have no idea how the country might have evolved had the Constitution not been adopted. Perhaps it would have been rewritten; perhaps the amendments which eventually became the Bill of Rights would have had to be incorporated before the document could be adopted. But the Constitutional convention had adjourned, its members scattered to their home states, and reconstituting it would have been politically challenging to say the least.

Catherine Drinker Bowen titled her story of the Constitution “Miracle at Philadelphia”; but the miracle did not end there—it was completed when the ninth state ratified and the Constitution became official. Even then, with Virginia yet to ratify, the future of the country was still uncertain. Not only was Virginia's vote close; New York's was even closer, and without those two states in the Union it is hard to imagine it surviving in the form that we know.

Ratification Dates and Votes:

1 Delaware, Dec 7, 1787, Unanimous
2 Pennsylvania, Dec 12, 1787, 46-23
3 New Jersey, Dec 18, 1787, Unanimous
4 Georgia, Jan 2, 1788, Unanimous
5 Connecticut, Jan 9, 1788, 128-40
6 Massachusetts, Feb. 6, 1788, 187-168
7 Maryland, April 28, 1788, 63-11
8 South Carolina, May 23, 1788, 149-73
9 New Hampshire, June 21, 1788, 57-47
10 Virginia, June 25, 1788, 89-79
11 New York, July 26, 178,8 30-27
12 North Carolina, Nov. 21, 1789, 195-77
13 Rhode Island, May 29, 1790, 34-32

Why was it so close? Here are a few arguments:

For Patrick Henry, arguing against ratification in the Virginia convention, the question of ratification turned on “the expression, We, the people, instead of the states, of America. I need not take much pains to show that the principles of this system are extremely pernicious, impolitic, and dangerous.”
A New York Anti-federalist argued under the pen name Cato that the Congress was too small: “It is a very important objection to this government, that the representation consists of so few; too few to resist the influence of corruption, and the temptation to treachery, against which all governments ought to take precautions.”
A Pennsylvania opponent was upset by the secrecy that had surrounded the Constitutional Convention, and claimed that the dangers of the existing system had been exaggerated: “Whilst the gilded chains were forging in the secret conclave, the meaner instruments of despotism without, were busily employed in alarming the fears of the people with dangers which did not exist, and exciting their hopes of greater advantages from the expected plan than even the best government on earth could produce.”

It is difficult for us to understand the objections thus raised, given that our Constitution has allowed the nation to prosper in the two centuries since its adoption. It should be pointed out, however, that the system created by the Constitution gave far more power to the national government than the King in Parliament had exercised over the colonies. it was indeed a national government and not a federation, as Patrick Henry had argued. But James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, any other leading Federalists had become convinced that in order for the nation to prosper, to defend itself, to conduct international in interstate commerce efficiently, and to provide for the needs of its citizens, a national government was necessary. The articles of Confederation had proved woefully inadequate to meet the challenges of the new nation, and tinkering with that product would have been difficult, as unanimous consent of all the states was required for any substantial amendment. Unanimity in politics is extremely hard to achieve, as we all know.

The “Federalist Papers” written by Hamilton, Madison, and John Jay, lay out the arguments in favor of the new government and remain one of the most important explications of our constitutional system ever written. Yet one should not overlook the anti-Federalist papers which, although not published in any single volume at the time, nevertheless constitute lucid and valid arguments on the nature of government; they should not be dismissed as the rantings of the losing side. Rather, in order to fully understand our constitutional heritage, one should become familiar with all the arguments that surrounded the adoption of our Constitution, both pro and con.

As this is being written, the U.S. Senate is preparing to offer its advice and consent (or non-consent) to the appointment of the new justice for the U.S. Supreme Court. Those who take a deep interest in the process will no doubt tend to focus on specific issues such as abortion, free speech, the rights of victims and those charged with crimes, and so on. But underlying all arguments, no matter how heated or specific they may become, will be the question, How do we interpret our Constitution?

During the First Congress James Madison collated the recommended amendments proposed by the state ratifying conventions, boiled them down to about 16, of which Congress eventually passed twelve. Ten were quickly ratified and became the Bill of Rights. Another was finally ratified in 1992 and is now the 27th Amendment.

A few resources:

Revolution Home | Updated August 23, 2007