 Show The answer lies in New York’s ratification process and the struggle between the Anti-Federalist contingent, led by Governor George Clinton, and the Federalists, led by Alexander Hamilton, the only New York member of the Constitutional Convention to have signed the Constitution. As the election of delegates to the statewide ratification convention planned for April 29, 1788, drew near, it was necessary to provide the general public with copies of the Constitution. In the April 7, 1788, issue of The Federalist Herald (also published by Claxton and Babcock) an editorial marked the local distribution of what is most likely this copy of the Constitution: "Before their arrival, you might here behold the honest, uninformed (or rather misinformed) peasantry almost ready to fight that MONSTER, the Constitution; — but, happy event! Their fears are daily vanishing — and their political sentiments are quite different from what they were while kept in the dark." In this broadside, George Washington’s letter of transmittal to the Confederation Congress, typically printed following the text of the Constitution in such publications, precedes the text in this version. Reminding his readers to rise above partisan politics for the greater good of the country, Washington, as president of the Constitutional Convention, wrote that "the constitution, which we now present, is the result of a spirit of amity" and expressed his wish "that it may promote the lasting welfare of that country so dear to us all, and secure her freedom and happiness." Read in this light, this printing of the Constitution can be seen as a last-minute offensive by the Federalists to garner support for the proposed government, specifically in Albany and Montgomery Counties. The New York ratification convention met in mid-June 1788. The Anti-Federalists clamored for a Bill of Rights and fought to preserve the autonomy of the state against federal encroachments. Hamilton and the Federalists contended that a stronger central government would provide a solid base from which New York could grow and prosper. While the debates were contentious, the Federalists were ultimately successful in bringing New York into the nationalist camp. The Anti-Federalists, however, managed to attach a list of proposed additions that had to be considered before New York would fully participate in the new government. A transcribed excerpt is available.ExcerptsGeorge Washington’s letter of transmittal of the US Constitution to Congress, page 1.In Convention, September 17, 1787. SIR, WE have now the honor to submit to the consideration of the United States in Congress assembled, that constitution which has appeared to us the most advisable. . . . It is obviously impracticable in the federal government of these states; to secure all rights of independent sovereignty to each, and yet provide for the interest and safety of all—Individuals entering into society, must give up a share of liberty to preserve the rest. The magnitude of the sacrifice must depend as well on situation & circumstance as on the object to be obtained. It is at all times difficult to draw with precision the line between those rights which must be surrendered, and those which may be reserved; and on the present occasion this difficulty was encreased by a difference among the several states as to their situation, extent, habits and particular interests. . . . That it will meet the full and entire approbation of every state is not perhaps to be expected; but each will doubtless consider, that had her interests been alone consulted, the consequences might have been particularly disagreeable or injurious to others; that it is liable to as few exceptions as could reasonably have been expected, we hope and believe; that it may promote the lasting welfare of that country so dear to us all, and secure her freedom and happiness, is our most ardent wish. 16b. AntifederalistsPatrick Henry delivers his famous "If this be treason, make the most of it!" speech to the Virginia House of Burgesses. The Antifederalists were a diverse coalition of people who opposed ratification of the Constitution. Although less well organized than the Federalists, they also had an impressive group of leaders who were especially prominent in state politics. Ranging from political elites like James Winthrop in Massachusetts to Melancton Smith of New York and Patrick Henry and George Mason of Virginia, these Antifederalist were joined by a large number of ordinary Americans particularly yeomen farmers who predominated in rural America. The one overriding social characteristic of the Antifederalists as a group was their strength in newer settled western regions of the country. On August 31, 1787, George Mason declared he would "rather chop off my right hand than put it to the Constitution as it now stands." In spite of the diversity that characterized the Antifederalist opposition, they did share a core view of American politics. They believed that the greatest threat to the future of the United States lay in the government's potential to become corrupt and seize more and more power until its tyrannical rule completely dominated the people. Having just succeeded in rejecting what they saw as the tyranny of British power, such threats were seen as a very real part of political life. To Antifederalists the proposed Constitution threatened to lead the United States down an all-too-familiar road of political corruption. All three branches of the new central government threatened Antifederalists' traditional belief in the importance of restraining government power. The President's vast new powers, especially a veto that could overturn decisions of the people's representatives in the legislature, were especially disturbing. The court system of the national government appeared likely to encroach on local courts. Meanwhile, the proposed lower house of the legislature would have so few members that only elites were likely to be elected. Furthermore, they would represent people from such a large area that they couldn't really know their own constituents. The fifty-five members of the proposed national House of Representatives was quite a bit smaller than most state legislatures in the period. Since the new legislature was to have increased fiscal authority, especially the right to raise taxes, the Antifederalists feared that before long Congress would pass oppressive taxes that they would enforce by creating a standing national army. The preamble of the United States Constitution: Most of the world's democracies have based their constitutions on this document. This range of objections boiled down to a central opposition to the sweeping new powers of the proposed central government. George Mason, a delegate to the Philadelphia Convention who refused to support the Constitution, explained, the plan was "totally subversive of every principle which has hitherto governed us. This power is calculated to annihilate totally the state governments." The rise of national power at the expense of state power was a common feature of Antifederalist opposition.
The most powerful objection raised by the Antifederalists, however, hinged on the lack of protection for individual liberties in the Constitution. Most of the state constitutions of the era had built on the Virginia model that included an explicit protection of individual rights that could not be intruded upon by the state. This was seen as a central safeguard of people's rights and was considered a major Revolutionary improvement over the unwritten protections of the British constitution. Why, then, had the delegates to the Philadelphia Convention not included a bill of rights in their proposed Constitution? Most Antifederalists thought that such protections were not granted because the Federalists represented a sinister movement to roll back the gains made for ordinary people during the Revolution. The Antifederalists and Federalists agreed on one thing: the future of the nation was at stake in the contest over the Constitution. What arguments did the AntiAnti-Federalists argued that the Constitution gave too much power to the federal government, while taking too much power away from state and local governments. Many felt that the federal government would be too far removed to represent the average citizen.
What were some arguments the AntiThe arguments the Anti-Federalists made were whether the Constitution would maintain republican government, whether the national government would have too much power, and whether a bill of rights was needed in the Constitution.
Which statement would AntiThe anti-Federalists would most likely agree with the argument that government should tax only to raise money for its essential functions, which is from the Republican position on the economy.
What was the main argument of the AntiThe Anti-Federalists were opposed to a strong central government. It gave too much power to the national government at the expense of the powers of the state governments, it did not include the bill of rights. Gave unlimited power to federal governments, and most convincing argument was that it didn't include it.
|
